Indonesia

Baroness Cox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to recent developments in Indonesia.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are concerned at ongoing violence in various parts of Indonesia, including inter-communal conflict in Maluka and Sulawesi. The UK stands ready to help the Indonesian authorities and local communities to promote reconciliation and begin wider reconstruction work. We continue to work closely with Indonesia on a broad range of important issues, including counter-terrorism. We have developed a significant package of counter-terrorism assistance with Indonesia since the devastating attack in Bali last year.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Would she agree that the Indonesian Government are to be congratulated on their endeavours to contain the militant extremists such as Laska Jihad and Jemaah Islamiyah, and to promote reconciliation in Maluka and Sulawesi through the Malino agreements? Could she indicate what specific support Her Majesty's Government might give to promote reconciliation and reconstruction in those areas, where both Muslims and Christians have suffered, with thousands killed, hundreds of thousands displaced, and many entire communities completely devastated?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree that the Indonesian Government are to be congratulated. I think that the whole House would like to congratulate the noble Baroness herself on the role that she has played in the international Islamic Christian Organisation for Reconciliation and Reconstruction in Indonesia.
	With respect to the support and efforts that we might make, the noble Baroness will be aware that the Prime Minister exchanged views with President Megawati's special envoy in London on 13th March and that promoting interfaith dialogue remains one of our key objectives in Indonesia. The Department for International Development has also committed more than £4 million to help to establish the UN Development Programme conflict prevention and recovery unit in Jakarta. In the longer term, we think that the Malino process needs to continue with both Muslim and Christian support.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her excellent work on behalf of interfaith understanding. Although recognising the sheer professionalism of the national police force in promoting the rule of law, does the Minister agree that the trouble is confined to particular localities and that in central Sulawesi the police appear to have an unhealthy relationship with violent extremists? Could our embassy facilitate the attendance of an observer at the trial of the Reverend Damanik whose efforts to bring about reconciliation between Muslims and Christians are obviously not welcome to the authorities?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have received a number of letters about that case. It is important that the legal process takes its full course. I take the point raised by my noble and learned friend about having someone observe what goes on at the trial. I shall take that request back to my colleagues and write to my noble and learned friend to let him know the outcome.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the noble Baroness noted that all 100 peacekeeping monitors have been withdrawn from their base in Acheh as a result of attacks on their offices and the wounding of two peacekeepers? Will she ask her colleague the Secretary of State to make a call similar to that already issued by the State Department in the US calling on the Indonesian Government to protect monitors and safeguard the peace process, and to ask the European Union to do the same?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I had better confess to the House that I was not aware that the monitors had been withdrawn until it was drawn to my attention by the noble Lord. We endorse the statement made by the United States Government with respect to the importance of supporting the peace process. As I understand it, ambassadors from the United States, Japan and the EU are meeting the Government of Indonesia today on those matters. We shall of course continue to support the peace process.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the Minister is right to congratulate the Indonesian police authorities on the work they have done in bringing to justice many of those who perpetrated the Bali massacre in which more than 200 people, including 24 Britons, died. However, what progress is being made in bringing to justice the operational head of Jemaah Islamiyah, who remains at large? Will the Minister also compare the treatment of Rinaldi Damanik, referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, with the way in which the head of Laska Jihad simply had charges against him dropped and was released from prison earlier this year?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of what happened in the case of the leader of Laska Jihad. Of course it is important that we try to get a degree of consistency, but the Indonesians have an independent legal and judicial system. It is important that that system can operate and operate independently. I am afraid that I am unable to answer the specific question on the Bali massacre about the operational head of the unit. I shall see if we have further information in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. If we have, I shall write to the noble Lord.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Cox, who does marvellous work in the region, that the Minister's reply was very helpful. However, does the Minister recall that, after Bali, the Government's response to the Intelligence and Security Committee inquiry was to the effect that there would be a new organisation for handling and disseminating terrorist intelligence and that it would have new objectives? Can she tell us anything about the progress with that organisation, whether it is in place and whether it is now operating?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government's response to the situation post-Bali was both to look at the security assessments and intelligence reports and at our own consular services. There is now greater co-ordination not only with regard to the information received from our intelligence services but with regard to the subsequent threat assessments and the use made of those assessments. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, may have seen the response of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee when it raised these issues. As for the consular aspect, we have set up rapid deployment teams which are able to go out very quickly—within 24 hours, or even sooner—should an incident similar to Bali occur in another part of the world.

Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the significance of the massacres goes far beyond Indonesia and relates to inter-religious, interfaith tensions which are now very near the surface as the result of recent military activity in the Middle East? Can she say what steps the Government are taking to facilitate interfaith dialogue in a way which encourages faiths to talk to each other in peace rather than fight each other in war?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is right. There are tensions around the world—the noble Lord may have seen that there was recently a demonstration of 250,000 in Indonesia—and the situation may well worsen. The Government are engaged in a number of interfaith processes around the world, and not only in the Middle East. I shall happily write to him to set those out—and, indeed, to mention some of the work between communities in which we are involved in African countries as well.

Unauthorised Firearms: Amnesty Arrangements

Lord Campbell of Croy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What amnesty arrangements they are making for the handing in of unauthorised firearms held by members of the public.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, from 31st March to 30th April of this year, anyone can hand in to the police any unauthorised firearms or ammunition in the knowledge that they will not be prosecuted for having them. We are also encouraging the handing in of unwanted guns, particularly imitations and airguns that are being held for criminal purposes. The amnesty provides people with an opportunity to get rid of guns that they should not have in advance of tough new gun laws.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. Will any amnesty such as the one now being planned be followed by severe, previously publicised penalties for possessing unauthorised weapons—for example, at least a five-year prison sentence?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, my Lords, it will. We have already announced that there will be a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for illegal possession of prohibited weapons. That will be introduced by legislation in the middle of this year and will follow the amnesty that is now taking place. We encourage people to hand in illegal weapons as soon as possible.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that imitation firearms can be just as dangerous as real ones? In fact, for obvious reasons, they can be lethal when brandished by people in the streets. Has any thought been given to the practice in some other European countries whereby toy and imitation firearms must be coloured very brightly to make it clear that they are just toys and imitations as opposed to the real thing?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. In some circumstances, imitation firearms can be just as dangerous as the real thing, partly because they can be adapted to become lethal and partly because they can be used in the commission of crime. That is why we are introducing a new offence of possessing imitation firearms or airguns in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. We should consider my noble friend's idea about painting imitations in a particular way and perhaps take it up with manufacturers.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we should be tough not only on guns but on the causes of guns and that the illegal drug business is the main reason why so many illegal firearms are held in society? He is no doubt aware of the Trident programme, run by the Metropolitan Police, which is so successfully targeting some of the drugs gangs that carry so many of the firearms. Are similar programmes being implemented by other urban police forces in other parts of the country? If so, are they ongoing? Are the Government supportive of such programmes?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with that proposition. As the noble Baroness said, Operation Trident is run by the Metropolitan Police. The Metropolitan Police would be the first to say that if you do not get in among the community and get it committed to turning its back on guns, then you will not make the progress that should be made. The work that the Metropolitan Police have done in that respect is incredibly impressive. I have been to many meetings with the community where it was perfectly plain that the Metropolitan Police have been making efforts to gain the community's confidence, so that people will, for example, actually give evidence against those who have committed the gun crime. There is a terrifying statistic. In the year to the end of 2000, 140 offences in Manchester involved firearms, but only one witness came forward. If we cannot persuade people to speak out against crime, we will not be able to fight crime effectively. Are other police forces engaged as well? Yes, they are. Do we support them? Yes, we do.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether he has issued a circular to chief officers of police in connection with the operation of this amnesty? If so, will he further confirm whether the circular requires that in cases where it is believed that a serious offence involving a surrendered weapon has taken place, normal procedures will be followed and urgent inquiries made?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the amnesty has been prepared and developed in association with the Association of Chief Police Officers. I pay tribute to the association and the work it has done with us in making the arrangements. Everything that has been done has been done between the two organisations, the Home Office and ACPO. If I may, I shall write to the noble Lord on the details of the circular.

Lord Renton: My Lords, what happens to real firearms that have been handed in?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, they are handed in to a police station and then examined by the police. If there is no reason to keep them, for example in relation to the investigation of crime, they are destroyed. If it is considered that they might have an historic or other value, they are kept and looked at.

Israeli-Palestinian Dispute

Lord Blaker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What recent progress has been made towards a settlement of the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on 10th March, President Arafat announced the appointment of Mahmoud Abbas to the newly-created position of Palestinian Prime Minister. This is a significant first step towards stronger Palestinian political institutions and a resumption of the peace process.
	Yesterday in Belfast, President Bush restated his commitment to publishing and implementing the quartet road map as soon as Mr Abbas is confirmed as Prime Minister. Implementation of the road map is the way forward to a final, comprehensive settlement. We call on the parties to co-operate fully with the quartet to this end.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, I feel sure that, like the noble Baroness, noble Lords will welcome the two events to which she referred. Is it not likely that President Bush will have to spend a lot of time and energy—as he undertook to do—in promoting the road map, bearing in mind that Israel has already put in a great number of amendments to it, including one which could possibly prevent any negotiations at all? On the Palestinian side, there appear to be differences between Yasser Arafat and the newly-appointed Palestinian Prime Minister. Nevertheless, are not these negotiations vital for stability in the whole of the Middle East and for the control of terrorism? Will the noble Baroness give an assurance to the House—I am sure that she can—that Her Majesty's Government will exert every possible effort in supporting President Bush in what he has undertaken to do?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I given that undertaking unequivocally. The Prime Minister has already exerted every possible effort to get us to the position in which we find ourselves today. I agree with the noble Lord that much work remains to be done. We cannot be complacent on the basis of statements made yesterday that a smooth path lies before us. There will be a great deal of difficulty. No doubt many on all sides will not wish the road map well. On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, noted, the President of the United States, in talking about the hard work that had gone into the peace process in Northern Ireland, said,
	"I am willing to spend the same amount of energy in the Middle East".
	That is a very heartening phrase from the President of the United States. I know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will also wish to put a great deal of effort into this matter in the future.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many believe that the road map is a euphemism for a journey that will not end at an acceptable destination, and that unless the United States puts realistic pressure upon Israel the Middle East will remain an area in which conflict will continue?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there is a great deal of truth in what the noble Lord says. Realistic pressure must be brought to bear on all sides, not just upon the Israelis. We need to recognise that there will be enemies of the road map on all sides and that a great deal of straight talking will have to be undertaken not only as regards the Israelis but also as regards others. I say to the noble Lord that it is very important indeed to recognise the phases that have been set out in the road map. I refer to the insistence on ending Palestinian violence—a very important issue for the Israelis—issues about security and other reforms leading to a second phase with the creation of the independent Palestinian state within provisional borders. There is a road map and it behoves us all now to do everything that we can to support it.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the dates in the road map are now getting rather close. Is it envisaged that as the road map has already been delayed, the stages for the road map will necessarily have to be delayed a little further?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have to be very careful about that. Once you start moving around certain parts of the road map—the noble Lord can see where I am going here—it opens up the possibility of changing other parts of it and tacking here and there. Then we will find that the road map does not look like the document that we all wish to support at the moment. The important date concerns a permanent status agreement being reached in the year 2005 under phase three, including an agreement on borders, refugees and the status of Jerusalem. That is the objective towards which, I hope all your Lordships agree, it is right for the international community to work.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that any map or route plan must include some reference to the right of Israel to exist within safe and secure boundaries, and that Resolution 242 of the United Nations is as important today as it was when it was first carried?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly. The whole point of the road map is that two states should be able to exist side by side within secure borders and, importantly, be respected as two states within those secure borders by other countries in the region. We attached enormous importance to the statements of Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia when he made the point very forcefully that that was the basis on which the Saudi Arabians—who, after all, have had some bitter things to say in the past about our friends in Israel—would be willing to support the measure. So my noble friend is absolutely right: the safety and security of the borders is vitally important. That is why phase one, which deals with security, is so important.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most important matters is to get rid of the pre-condition that no negotiation can take place so long as any acts of violence are occurring, as that hands the agenda to the men of violence who do not want a peace process in the first place? Does she also agree that the road map is not open to negotiation? What has to be negotiated now is the implementation of the road map, not an endless argument about what is in it.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the point that the noble Lord made about preconditions. If we had worked on the basis of the preconditions, we would not have got anywhere with the peace process in Northern Ireland. I refer to the important remarks of the President of the United States about the implementation of the peace process in Northern Ireland. I am terribly sorry but I have forgotten the second point that the noble Lord made. Will he remind me?

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I asked the Minister whether she agreed that the negotiation has to be about implementing the road map, not arguing about what is in it.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Indeed, my Lords. That was the point that I tried to make when the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, talked about the possibility of changing some of the dates. The difficulty is that if you start to negotiate on dates for the road map other issues may be put forward as matters that can be renegotiated. It is important to stick with the road map and to talk about the best way of achieving it.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, although most of us want to see the road map as soon as possible, will not the proposed Palestinian Prime Minister need a few days, first, to gather his full team and, secondly, to establish that he has proper powers and is able to carry forward the kind of issues that we want to see carried forward? Does that not make the case for showing patience for a few weeks until that is clear?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is precisely why the road map has not been published so far. British diplomats have had meetings with Mahmoud Abbas, otherwise known as Abu Mazen, who is at the moment putting together his Cabinet appointments. At the point that he has formed his government, we hope that he will be confirmed as Prime Minister by the Palestinian Authority. At that point we shall look to see the road map published.

Means Testing

Lord Higgins: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What has been the increase in the number and percentage of individuals and households subject to means testing since the Chancellor of the Exchequer's first Budget.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in May 1997 there were around 8 million benefit units—that is, 27 per cent of single adults or couples living as married and any dependent children—in Great Britain in receipt of one or more income-related benefits. The latest comparable data available are for May 2001 and show a total of 7.4 million benefit/tax units—that is, 24 per cent—in receipt of one or more income-related benefits or tax credits.
	We forecast that by 2003–04 around 11 million tax/benefit units are likely to be in receipt of one or more income-related benefits or tax credits. That figure includes the child tax credit, working tax credit and, from October 2003, pension credit.
	I am sorry that that is a complicated Answer but the full facts are even more complicated. If I may, I should like to place a more detailed response in the Library and send it to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful and topical reply. Is it not clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is obsessed with means testing and in particular with means-tested tax credits, with the result that the system is now so complicated—the Minister confirmed that—that virtually no one understands it? Does he agree with the PAC report published yesterday that that is a major barrier to people taking up their benefits and that the Government's targets for improving take-up lack ambition? Does he also agree that the effect of all of that means testing is to deter prudent savings, with the result that, as is shown in today's Red Book, the savings ratio has more than halved since 1997?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not agree that tax credits are complicated; I said that the presentation of these figures—with all of the complications about overlap, about who is in receipt and about whether income-related benefits or tax credits are involved—is complicated. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked a complicated Question and he is getting as fair an answer as he can possibly get. As for the Public Accounts Committee, yes, I have seen what it said. The fact is that we have recently published a study of the take-up of benefits and we have shown a substantial increase in, for example, the take-up of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners—there has been an increase of 3 to 4 per cent for the poorest pensioners. I could—but I will not—read out the take-up figures for all such benefits. The impact of this approach is not as the Public Accounts Committee claimed.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend agrees that means testing has serious economic consequences. I wonder whether the Treasury has now decided that means testing through the tax system is more effective than through cash benefits. If so, has it done any research into those matters, and will he publish it?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, means testing is a pejorative term; it goes right back to the 1930s. I much prefer, more neutrally, to refer to income-related benefits, which is what I did. Income-related benefits cover a wide range of benefits and methods of calculation. For example, the pension credit that will come into effect on 1st October will no longer be tested on a weekly basis; it will be tested through a simple application, which could be done on a freephone number and which will last for up to five years. Under those circumstances, targeted benefits are not the menace that they were many years ago.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the Minister gave the figure for 2003–04. Could he estimate that as a percentage of the population, as was asked for in the Question?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was going beyond the Question and trying to be even more helpful. If 8 million is 27 per cent, 11 million, allowing for increases in the population, is more than 27 per cent.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Government were disappointed by the take-up of the tax credit system? They are spending many thousands of pounds promoting that system. Does the noble Lord also agree that the forms that people are asked to complete are very complex and very long? What are the Government doing to reduce that in order to encourage people to take up the tax credit to which they are entitled?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the answer to the noble Baroness's last question is that we are cutting down the forms and simplifying them. The answer to the question about advertising is that it is certainly true that we have been advertising in order to increase take-up. For example, when we last had a campaign to advertise the minimum income guarantee for pensioners, by January 2003—by the end of the campaign—we had more than 250,000 additional applications and 150,000 successful applications. Such advertising works: it increases the number of targeted benefits and decreases poverty.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, unusually for my noble friend, he overlooked answering my simple question. What research has the Treasury done into these matters and will he publish it?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the research was done by the Department for Work and Pensions—I happen to be answering for it at the moment—and was published on 27th March.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Minister referred to the pension credit that will be introduced later this year. Will he say what proportion of pensioners will be subject to means testing once the pension credit is introduced in October?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if we revert again to the more neutral wording of income-related benefits and to the fact that the testing of applicability for income-related benefit will be a much simpler process than that for the minimum income guarantee, we anticipate that we will have 1.8 million people taking benefit units—taking pension credit—in October this year, rising to 2.8 million by October 2004 and eventually to about 3 million. I am not very good at working out percentages in my head and am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, as an accountant, can do much better than I can.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will agree that the majority of pensioners will be means tested once the pension credit is introduced.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I do not believe that that follows.

Iraq: Humanitarian Aid and Reconstruction

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What will be the role of the United Nations in humanitarian assistance and reconstruction in, and political rehabilitation of, Iraq following the fall of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the Prime Minister and President Bush agreed yesterday, the United Nations should have a vital role in the reconstruction of Iraq.
	Security Council Resolution 1472 allows for the resumption of humanitarian aid through the Oil for Food programme. We have welcomed the efforts of the United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations in providing that vital and immediate humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq.
	Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government would welcome further UNSCRs confirming Iraq's territorial integrity, providing for further humanitarian relief and endorsing an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq.
	We hope to work closely with the United Nations to assist the people of Iraq in establishing an interim Iraqi authority as soon as possible.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I hope that it is in order once more to express our admiration of the courage and professionalism of our armed services in fulfilling the task that is expected of them. I also hope that it is in order to express our concern for the wounded and the bereaved on all sides.
	I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does she agree that the UN has a vital role to play in the co-ordination of humanitarian and construction work because many humanitarian agencies feel that they are able to play their part fully only if there is an international presence that is led by the UN? Does she also agree that this is not simply a matter of endorsing arrangements for the political future of Iraq but that if we are looking for stability not only in Iraq but in the Middle East and in the world as a whole—if we are to win hearts and minds—the UN, with the global authority and impartiality that it will bring, is essential to the task of building that political future and bringing into being the arrangements that will be necessary for the Iraqis themselves to take control of their own affairs?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I can agree with virtually everything that my noble friend said. I join him, as I am sure all noble Lords do, in the admiration that he expressed of the courage and professionalism of our Armed Forces. I add that many noble Lords will have seen with admiration the compassion and humanity of our Armed Forces when dealing not only with civilians but with many wounded combatants from the other side.
	Of course the United Nations has a vital role; that was stressed forcefully by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. I say to the noble Lord that some international NGOs are already operating in Iraq. He will know that the Red Cross and the Red Crescent are already undertaking some important work. I point out to him that, in view of his passion about the United Nations, he will find a great deal of reassurance if he reads the account of the press conference yesterday, in which the President of the United States three times reiterated the importance of the role of the United Nations.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, following the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to hearts and minds, is the Minister aware that, according to the Financial Times this weekend, Mr Jay Garner, who apparently has been appointed interim governor of Iraq, has considerable experience of working in northern Iraq following the Gulf War but that his main business connections have involved the sale of L-3 missiles to Israel and he is on record as praising the Israeli Army's use of remarkable restraint in handling Palestinian unrest? Is that an example of sensitivity?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that we must look at what Mr Garner is being asked to undertake at present in Iraq and at what he is doing, together with his deputies. I remind your Lordships that one of those deputies is a United Kingdom Army officer, who is serving with particular responsibility for international liaison. I consider it to be most important that one of the people playing a vital role in relation to Jay Garner is British. We look to him to ensure that the values that your Lordships would wish to see brought to bear are in the forefront of minds.
	Of course, people will want to raise all kinds of issues in relation to particular individuals. But we must consider the purpose of ORHA and the fact that, in answering Questions only today, my right honourable friend said that ORHA is only a stage on the way to establishing the Iraqi interim authority, which we hope will be in place very soon.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, reverting to the Question, does the Minister accept our view that, once it can be organised—it may take a little time—UN expertise will be both welcome and invaluable in all stages of Iraq's rehabilitation? But does she accept that the overriding aims of the coalition and UN agencies in working together must be to meet the immediate humanitarian needs, which are desperate, and to put in place the foundations of a civil administration, placing those operations in Iraqi hands as soon as practicable? Will the Government remind the French that, despite their remorseless hostility to fresh UN resolutions, a new resolution is needed here and now—immediately—to lift the sanctions on the new Iraq?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I believe that the role of the United Nations will be, as the noble Lord put it, invaluable. I point out to the noble Lord that humanitarian needs have been covered by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1472, which allowed for the Oil for Food programme to resume and for aid to reach the Iraqi people.
	So far as concerns our friends in France, perhaps I should say that President Chirac has expressed the view that, following a necessary stage of ensuring security, there will naturally follow a time of reconstruction with a command that the UN should play what he called a "central role". I do not believe that there is such a world of difference between what the Prime Minister said yesterday about a vital role and what President Chirac said about a central role. I am sure that, with good will on all sides, work can be done to bring about agreements at the United Nations.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the breakdown in law and order in Iraq was sadly predictable? Can she tell us what plans the Government had drawn up in advance to deal with that, and can she give us details of how, when and with whose help those plans will now be implemented?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe there is a period in any military conflict when what the noble Baroness described as "a breakdown in law and order" takes place. Like your Lordships, I have seen television pictures of a certain amount of looting. However, I do not consider that that amounts to a complete breakdown in law and order, and I believe that the noble Baroness should be careful not to exaggerate the situation of young people looting objects that they desire into a complete breakdown of law and order. Murder and mayhem are not taking place on the streets, as the phrase "a complete breakdown of law and order" would seem to imply. However, the situation in Basra has been a cause for concern. As a result, the British military have sought to engage on the spot Iraqis who may have authority with the people of Basra in order to contain some of the unruly elements, particularly among younger people, who have sought to take advantage in looting buildings.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, thanks to many factors—international communication technology included—this war has been more debated than any other in living memory? Is that not a further argument for healing the wounds of our own international friendships which have been severed and for ensuring that the United Nations is put back in the driving seat as soon as possible?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that 24-hour coverage has meant that we have seen on our televisions some very distressing pictures of what has taken place. I cannot help thinking that in many ways that is a good thing and that we should be confronted with the horror of war. We should know what is going on in our names. I, for one, have supported this military conflict; many of your Lordships have not. But I have not sought to turn my face away from what is being done in my name and I believe it is right that we face up to it.
	In respect of the role of the United Nations, of course we need United Nations authority for what happens in the longer term. But it is also important that the coalition and the United Nations work together on this issue in the longer term. I have no doubt that there will be much argument about the precise role of the United Nations—we should not pretend that there will not be. But we can all believe in the principle of the United Nations playing a vital role or, to express it in the French way, a central role.

Lord Desai: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are now out of time, I am afraid.

Religion and Global Terrorism

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: rose to call attention to the religious element in global terrorism and appropriate interfaith responses; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, although our immediate concern is the military conflict in Iraq, I believe, as many of us do, that the greatest long-term threat is global terrorism. Any study of Al'Qaeda reveals that this is a threat that we need to take very seriously indeed. Al'Qaeda is closely related to a range of independent terrorist groups now operating in some 80 countries, providing a global network with a sharply defined, ideologically motivated strategy. It appears to be well organised, with different departments and different nationalities responsible for separate aspects of the operation, including a successful financial section. It has planned a good number of attacks in recent years—not all of them well reported. It has had a significant base in this country. An analysis of bin Laden's telephone-billing records reveal that from 1996–98 a fifth of his calls—238 out of 1,200—were made to Britain. So this is a threat we need to take with the greatest possible seriousness.
	One of the most disturbing aspects of the phenomenon is the misuse of religion. Even more than technical skill and training, Al'Qaeda seeks religious commitment from its members—a religious motivation that will steel them to kill and be killed without fear or scruple. So the concern that lies behind my Question and behind my asking for this debate is the effect that this has had, and is having, on the mainstream Muslim population in this country. My question is: what can we as a society do and what, in particular, can interfaith groups do to support the mainstream, moderate majority?
	A book published a few years ago—War of the Flea—analysed guerrilla movements since World War II. The strategy of those movements was not to win great military victories, which of course such groups could not do, but to stay in existence long enough and to be enough of a nuisance until political victory was assured. Winning the political struggle depended entirely on having the support of the wider community on whose behalf they claimed to be engaged in armed struggle. The parallel with Al'Qaeda seems uncannily close. In short, they will succeed only if what they stand for resonates with the wider Muslim world and, in particular, if the religious motivation to which they lay claim is recognised and validated elsewhere.
	If the Muslim community around the world and in this country feel alienated from the society in which they live, what Al'Qaeda says and stands for will have reverberations within that community. If, on the other hand, Al'Qaeda is isolated, not just physically but ideologically, it cannot succeed. I return to my question: what can we as a society do and what can interfaith groups do to support the moderate mainstream majority in the Muslim world?
	I would like to mention language. People sometimes talk and write of Islamic terrorism. As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, pointed out in the House at another time, terrorists are terrorists so why dignify them with the name "Islamic". It is a matter of fact that Al'Qaeda claims that title, but there is no reason why the rest of society and the millions of moderate, decent Muslims should be complicit in its use. It besmirches the name Islam and reinforces any tendencies in our society towards Islamaphobia.
	While on the subject of reporting, I make a plea that the media give greater prominence to the views of mainstream Muslim leaders and not just focus on the extremists. There were many Muslim condemnations of 11th September and there have been Muslim condemnations of suicide bombing as incompatible with the Koran. But so often the men of violence get the headlines.
	So far as government policy is concerned, I believe that particular care is required to ensure that action is not taken against particular categories of people just because they are Muslim. Immigration policy is a particular issue here. People from Muslim countries should not be classified indiscriminately as a potential threat just because they are Muslims. That can arouse only resentment in the wider Muslim community that wants nothing to do with terrorism. Similarly we need to be vigilant that Muslim prisoners, such as those at Guantanamo Bay, are accorded the basic legal rights that apply to everyone in a civilised society.
	Then, of course, there are the unresolved political questions like Palestine, which are a continuing source of anguish and grievance to the whole Muslim world and which allow a kind of sneaking sympathy for terrorists among some younger people. I am sympathetic to the fears and genuine security needs of Israel and I make no further comment beyond a hope that the kind of commitment that has been shown to win the war in Iraq might be put into winning a durable peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
	It is not for a Christian to say what the Muslim community might do to strengthen the forces of moderation except to recall that Islam has been one of the great civilising forces in history and that the Wahabi strand of Islam, especially its more extreme elements, is unrepresentative of Islam in history and in the world today. Only a couple of days ago it was reported that a new Muslim council has been formed in France to represent its 5 million Muslim citizens. I look forward to a time when a Muslim equivalent of the Board of Deputies of British Jews in this country can unite the different strands of Islam and help the whole community to speak with a single voice to British society today.
	Even here I believe that the wider British society can help. We can try to ensure that on public bodies, major institutions and in all consultations responsible leaders and spokesmen are identified and invited to make their contribution. The religious broadcasting department of the BBC has, I believe, done that to some significant extent by ensuring that there are now regular Muslim speakers on "Thought for the Day". That is just one example of what needs to take place in every aspect of our civic life, for it is in that way that particular people are not only enabled to make their contribution but to become recognised and valued spokespeople for their community.
	On the issue of leaders, there is just one question I would put to the Muslim community, although not in my own name because that would not be appropriate. Dr Zaki Badawi, who is one of the best known Muslim spokesmen in the country at the moment, has asked about some of the imams who come from abroad, often from very rural backgrounds, to minister in the mosques in this country. He asks what checks are made by the community to see that they are in fact properly qualified, not just from a religious point of view, but also in their understanding of what it might mean for a Muslim to be a faithful Muslim in our society today.
	Finally, I turn to the contribution that I think interfaith groups, and perhaps particularly the Churches, can make to this issue. I am glad to say that many Muslim communities see the Churches as natural allies and we are glad to try to be such. In many of the cities of our country there are close relationships between Christian leaders and Muslim leaders. That was particularly evident after 11th September and at the time of community tensions a year or so ago.
	The previous Archbishop of Canterbury—now the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey of Clifton—is associated with two initiatives that could have great value for the future. One is the Muslim-Christian forum, which is in the process of visiting our major cities in order to listen to Muslim concerns. As I understand it, there have already been visits to about five cities with large Muslim populations. I believe that it will be worth taking notice of what those taking part in the visits hear and eventually report on. Secondly, there is the initiative in the Middle East which brought together Muslim, Jewish and Christian leaders at a very high level and which resulted in the Alexandria declaration. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, regrets that he is unable to be here to talk further about that; he is in the United States.
	Behind the Alexandria process is a realisation that the peace process in the Middle East so far has not really engaged ordinary people. It has been a matter of leader speaking to leader. It was further recognised that if the process is to move out of political assemblies to engage populations as a whole, then religious leaders could play a key role. The Alexandria process continues and there is a permanent committee for its implementation. A particular contribution is being made by the International Centre for Reconciliation at Coventry Cathedral.
	Separate from those two initiatives, but not unrelated, is a meeting in Qatar this week, which was initiated by the previous Archbishop of Canterbury and is being carried on by the present one. I believe that such initiatives and the variety of forms of interfaith work that now go on in our society can play an important role in ensuring that Muslim communities are understood and enabled to play their proper part in contributing to the future of our society in all its aspects. I hope that the Government recognise that and that they will be able, in various ways, to encourage and to support such work. It is of course the initiative and work of the interfaith groups themselves. But government, with their proper responsibility for the health of civil society, can try to ensure that such work is not marginalised but recognised as a key component in enabling the Muslim community to make its contribution to our culture and society and to help British Muslims feel at ease with being such and indeed proud to be such.
	Those are just a few points. I hope that other noble Lords will be able to complement them with more and perhaps better ideas. It is the question behind the debate that I believe is the important consideration: what can society as a whole, and interfaith groups in particular, do to strengthen moderate, mainstream, majority Muslim opinion? For on the success of that depends the extent to which Al'Qaeda is ideologically isolated and dies out, or has an increasing resonance within the wider Muslim world, so much of which at the moment is alienated. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for tabling this Motion. I have only five minutes so I shall have to be very brief. I am sorry that he has done that. On the one hand, we say that Al'Qaeda is not Muslim terrorism and on the other hand we ask, "What are we going to do about Islam? How can we embrace our Muslim friends?". Why single out Islam? In my view—as an Atheist I am sorry to say—every religion preaches peace and it is used as a cause for war. Every religion—Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism—has spawned terrorism. When terrorists adopt a religious garb they are fooling themselves as much as other people, because their purpose is political. It is very difficult to say to someone, "Go and kill a perfect stranger who has done you no harm". We do not do that, unless for crimes of passion. But say to someone, "Do it in the name of God", "Do it in the name of nationalism", or, "Do it in the name of communism", and they will. You need an ideology to cloak your desire to kill.
	It is unfortunate that after a century of secularisation the world has gone backwards, and we now have religious movements. In my youthful naivety, I thought that religion might disappear in my lifetime, but it has not. I do mean it seriously. If we are serious about saying that Al'Qaeda is not Muslim terrorism, let us completely forget about trying to be accommodative to religions and so on. It is nothing to do with the Koran, nor with the Bible. By emphasising more and more faith and interfaith councils by having the Alexandria process and so on, we are doing exactly what we should not.
	When Al'Qaeda struck, everyone started to read the Koran. It is a very good book. Like all religious books it is mildly boring. I have always found it very difficult to read such books, but some people like them. One would no more say that the Bible is a guide to solving the Northern Ireland problem—because it is not—than say one could fight Al'Qaeda by reading the Koran. Al'Qaeda is not doing anything which has a religious aspect of being Muslim. Its battle is with other Muslim kingdoms, especially the Saudi kingdom. Its battle is a political battle to undermine modernism in Islamic states. That has happened in Egypt for a century or more. There have been religious movements trying to destroy the secular modernistic movement in Middle Eastern countries.
	For instance, why do we suddenly assume that Palestine is a Muslim problem? The PLO originally was a secular political party. There are many people in the Middle East and in Palestine who are not Muslims. They are Christians. The founder of the Ba'ath Party, Michel Aflaq, was a Christian. Why do we suddenly adopt these labels, and, having adopted them out of the kindness of our hearts, say, "The cure to this is to understand religion"? The cure to understanding is that religion is the problem. If we secularise, move away from this and say that these people have nothing to do with religion and that their battle is political and ideological; and if we emphasise those aspects and, as it were, delink terrorism from religion, we will be much better off.
	It will be difficult to do because the terrorists will insist more and more that the lead people among them are Muslims—of course they are Muslims. There are terrorists in India who worship the Hindu god and Buddhists in Sri Lanka who kill, despite Buddhism being a non-violent religion. So I feel that we should think very differently about this and not let faith into the problem. Faith will not solve the issue of terrorism. We will have to reinforce what I may call "secular" and "materialist" values. That is the only solution.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, for enabling us to discuss this absorbing and highly pertinent subject. I agree that it is most fitting that, as noted by the right reverend Prelate, our debate is taking place on the final day of the second Building Bridges seminar in Qatar.
	The concept of so-called "sacred terror" is as far as it is possible to get from the true meaning of religion, whatever its denomination and its teaching of peace, forgiveness and tolerance. This debate poses difficult but necessary questions about the role of religious factors in the escalation of conflicts and the justification of violence in the name of religion. It asks what happens when liturgy and scripture are used to defend or to authorise violence and when clerical figures assume leadership roles in acts of bloodshed.
	As is so often the case, the influence of religious leaders is heightened in times of crisis. As a result, they have the potential to moderate, mediate and defuse tensions on a local level within their own communities.
	Equally, faith-based institutions have a similar role to play on a larger national and international stage, as part of a broad strategy to prevent the escalation of inter-ethnic, inter-cultural and inter-religious violence. The 9/11 terrorist attacks made it clear that, important though they are, military, political and legal measures alone will not eradicate the threat posed by terrorism. A broader, more long-term approach is needed as well, which takes into account the ideological and spiritual aspects of the influence of religion upon terrorism. The case for religion to be allowed to teach its true doctrine of love, peace and understanding, is overwhelming. Such teaching includes an understanding of the faiths of others, so that an end may be brought to those conflicts all over the world, which are inflamed by a poor understanding of religion, and exacerbated by ethnic, cultural and historical differences.
	Religion has the potential to be a big tent under which many nations with differing cultures, spiritualities, devotional practices and theologies can gather in peace and harmony. For this reason, meetings of religious leaders, inter-religious academic dialogue such as that taking place in Qatar as we speak and mutual interfaith co-operation, such as lectures in each other's places of worship, are critical components.
	Interfaith co-operation and dialogue can be approached in two ways. The first takes the view that, despite our superficial differences, we are all one people, one church and one global community. While acknowledging the diversity of faiths, it stresses the need for understanding, respect and tolerance. An excellent example of this approach is the annual meeting of the Community of Sant'Egidio.
	Secondly, there is the need to address the real differences both within faiths and among them. This is the core idea of the World Faiths and Development Dialogue. It was born of an awareness of how complex dialogue across cultures, disciplines and worlds can be and how differently many religious institutions, for example, see the problems of poverty to that of development institutions. Its aim is to bring together at the table the voices and experience of those different worlds with the common aim of attacking the misery of poverty and helping to build a better world.
	The events of September 11th and the dialogue since then have highlighted the complicated effect that poverty has on peace, stability, violence and social justice. There is now a far wider recognition that poverty is one of the major alienating factors in society, which in the right circumstances can nurture and breed terrorism.
	Religion and faiths are very much part of this struggle, and must equally be part of the search for answers to the problem. With important exceptions, such as Jubilee 2000, religions have perhaps been too little part of the dialogue and work on global poverty issues and country strategies and programmes. We would be wise to expend more effort and energy in this direction.
	I have stressed the central importance of dialogue in the pursuit of peace: dialogue between religions and states, between religions and within religions. It is essential. The twin evils of terrorism and extremism destroy the rule of law, human rights, basic freedoms and democracy and they threaten peace and security. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, rightly said, our struggle against terrorism is not a struggle against any religion, including Islam. Terrorists are enemies common to all societies. Men, women and children of all faiths and all cultures have been the innocent victims of terrorist attacks and they have a common interest in countering the global threat. It is time that religions and beliefs reclaimed their rightful role and contributed to the process through determined, resolute and ground-breaking interfaith co-operation, partnerships and initiatives.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, to the terrorist who is motivated by a particular kind of religious fanaticism, all existing governments are evil and all must be swept away. We have made little effort to understand the mind-set of people who reach that conclusion or the ideological basis of their thinking. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, implied, we cannot hope to eradicate that kind of terrorism by military action in Afghanistan or Iraq. On the contrary, as President Mubarak has said, we are creating 100 Bin Ladens by that process. Instead, we must consider the doctrines that motivate terrorists and the means by which they are spread around the Islamic world.
	The mainspring of religious terrorism is the idea that only those who follow the Salafi or Wahhabi ideals are genuine Muslims, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out. The Salafis, who claim that Islam has not been properly understood by anyone since the time of the Prophet and his immediate followers, have their own interpretation of the Koran and the Sunna. The rest—Shi'a, Sufis and even Sunnis who fail to come up to the standards set by those self-appointed guardians of Islam, are to be hated, persecuted and killed.
	They cite a saying attributed to the Prophet:
	"This Ummah will split into 73 parties, all of which will go to Hell—except for one party: the one which will follow the same path as that which I and my companions are following today".
	Those people say that the Salafi Da'wah, or call, is the only true constant and blessed Da'wah of the Prophet. Hence, anyone who pretends to be a Muslim, but does not adhere to Salafism, is a heretic and a kafir, or unbeliever. That doctrine is taught in Saudi Arabian schools and spread throughout the Islamic world in Saudi-funded madrassas. Those religious schools are attractive to poor families in Indonesia or Pakistan that might otherwise be unable to give their children any education.
	So although Saudi Arabia is nominally our ally in the struggle against global terrorism, Saudi money is paying for the establishment of the breeding grounds of terrorism. Ironically, the Salafist view is just as hostile to the rulers of Saudi Arabia as it is to the West. Those who call for the destruction of America do so as a prelude to the replacement of the Saudi regime with a pure Islamic government, the policies of which are not further defined.
	The product of the hatred felt by the extremist wing of the Salafist movement is seen in events such as the bombing of US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam; the killing of the French submarine technicians in Karachi; the nightclub bombing in Bali; the attack on the USS Cole; the suicide attack on the French oil tanker off the coast of Yemen; and, of course, 9/11 itself. Those are not isolated atrocities; but neither are they directed by a single, monolithic world organisation. They are the deeds of a number of different groups related to one another only loosely by a common jihadist ideology.
	Thus, for example, Jemaah Islamiyah of Indonesia, about which we heard during Questions, whose members perpetrated the Bali bombing, is not part of Al'Qaeda, although its leader, Abu Bakar Bashir, is an outspoken admirer of Bin Laden. In Pakistan, two new brands of terrorist organisation were behind the suicide attack in Karachi—both were coalitions of extremists from a variety of backgrounds.
	We should be looking for common ideological or quasi-religious origins behind all those movements, considering what can be done to stop the dissemination of religious hatred at source and helping Muslim states to offer a broader education to the children of the next generation.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I, too, welcome the initiative of the right reverend Prelate in introducing this important debate. Of course, I do not approach the subject from the point of view of a theologian, which I am not, but 30 years experience of living in and working with the Arab world and of seeing at first hand some of the tensions and suspicions that have led to what the Motion refers to as,
	"the religious element in global terrorism",
	may allow me to point to some aspects of the problem that may not always be obvious to those who see it solely as a problem of how to respond to an Islamic threat. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, put it: why single out Islam?
	First, let us ask ourselves why religious people involve themselves at all in what their opponents describe as terrorism: whether they are Roman Catholic or Protestant fanatics in Northern Ireland; Islamic extremists from Saudi Arabia joining the ranks of Al'Qaeda; or extreme Zionists preaching the expulsion of Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian, from Samaria and Judea.
	There are four considerations here, which apply in varying degrees to all of those so-called terrorists. The first is a misunderstanding, by both their co-religionists and by their adversaries, of the message of peace and tolerance that underlies all three great scriptures of the sons of Abraham. Secondly, fear of the threat supposedly posed by religions different from their own—often fed by what I call the baggage of history; whether the Crusades, the Holocaust or the events of September 11th. Thirdly, vengeance for injustices, or perceived injustices, against minorities or their co-religionists, both present and past. Fourthly, the use—or, I should say, the misuse—of religion, often by secular leaders such as Saddam Hussein, to pursue their political ambitions, and the attribution of religious motives to what are essentially nationalist agendas.
	The noble Lord, Lord Desai, reminded us that the founder of the Ba'ath Party was a Christian. So was the head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, George Habash. There are serious dangers in generalising on this diverse and complicated issue and in ascribing all four motivations of fear, mistrust, misunderstanding and vengeance to every incident of terrorism. But there is a generic problem that requires, as the wording of the Motion implies, a truly interfaith response.
	In that context, perhaps I may say how much I admire the attempts made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has this week been in Qatar to try to achieve a greater reconciliation and mutual understanding between Muslims and Christians, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned. We must all try to correct, or at least explain, the misunderstandings and seeds of intolerance that have their basis in historical conflicts—some as far back as the Crusades of the 12th and 13th centuries, which I have found are still surprisingly fresh in the memories of some Muslim politicians.
	Perhaps more importantly, we need an interfaith attempt to distance ourselves from the more extreme fundamentalism of religious leaders—whether the fanaticism of Sheikh Abu Hamza and Osama bin Laden; the racist "enophobia of the late Israeli Minister of Tourism, Mr Zeevi; or the extremism of the more fundamentalist Christian movements in the United States—and to encourage those, such as the young on both sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict, who are genuinely trying to work together for peace and whom some of your Lordships may have seen walking hand in hand during some of the remarkable five-minute programmes broadcast from Ramallah on Channel 4.
	Most of all, we need unified and unwavering support for those political initiatives aimed at finding a peaceful settlement to current disputes, whether in Kashmir, Belfast or Gaza. It will not surprise your Lordships that I end with a familiar appeal: that, to whatever faith we belong, we continue to urge the United States Administration to put their full weight behind a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is not only causing such appalling hardship, deprivation and casualties for all those involved, but which lies at the basis of so much of the religious intolerance and terrorism which it is in all our interests to allay.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I declare an interest. I have followed the noble Lord, Lord Wright, often and have rarely agreed with him more. I am only sorry that he ended up where he did without dealing with the problems of terrorism afflicting that area.
	I declare an interest because I was founder president of the Maihonides Foundation, which fosters relations between Muslims and Jews.
	I declare an interest because, as a Jewish leader, I have travelled through most of the Muslim world and will continue to do so.
	I declare an interest because as Member of Parliament for Leicester West I represented a growing Hindu community and fought against racism against them. A major part of my life was and remains devoted to the battle against racism.
	I declare an interest because I went to Durban to the so-called UN Anti-Racist Conference, watched the parade of people with banners saying "Death to the Jews" and sadly ended up leading the Jewish organisations out of that awful occasion.
	What do we do? The question is how we deal with racism. Of course, racism sometimes has a religious element, but, as my noble friend Lord Desai said, by no means does it always have such an element. We must not blame everything on religion. But what do we do and how do we do it?
	The answer came from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We must have dialogue if we are to get anywhere. Recently, I was with a very senior leader of India who said, "Look, without dialogue you don't get peace. But if you have terror, you can't have dialogue. So if you have terror, you can't have peace". He was talking about Kashmir but he could have been talking about the Middle East. Where there is terror—this is at the root of the first part of the right reverend Prelate's debate—you cannot talk to people; you are afraid of them, and you do not relate to them. How do we deal with it? The answer is through dialogue and meeting and listening.
	For example, recently I was fortunate to be the guest of the Tunisian Government in Tunisia, meeting people of all religions. I did the same in Morocco and, lately, in Azerbaijan. Most people do not know where it is. There are 35,000 Jewish people in Azerbaijan, yet there has not been one instance of anti-Semitism in recorded memory. We were taken to the mosque, where we were received by the mullah, who brought together the leaders of all the religions and announced that the mosque was making a contribution towards the rebuilding of the synagogue in Baku, their capital.
	There is hope in this world when people get together and understand that either we will live in peace or we will die in war. Either we will live with and understand each other, put up with our differences and understand them, or we will say, "We are going to fight you", and then life is hell for all. People are entitled to have their differences, but they are not entitled to destroy each other. There must be respect. If there is no respect, we will not have dialogue; if there is no respect, we will not have peace.
	There are organisations in the interfaith movement, which I know very well, such as the Three Faiths Forum. It is led by marvellous people, including Sheikh Zaki Badawi and Sir Sigmund Sternberg. After 9/11, a joint statement was issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury; Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor; the Free Churches Moderator; the Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Saks; Shaikh Zaki Badawi; and the Reverend Esme Beswick, co-president of Churches Together in England. They set out their fears, hopes and common ground, specifically in Britain,
	Xto build a society in which different faith communities can flourish side by side in mutual respect and in harmony".
	That is our only hope. If we allow the terrorists to flourish, whether across the way in Ireland, in Palestine or Israel, there cannot be dialogue. If there is no dialogue, there cannot be peace. We must strike at terrorism; we must work together; we must respect each other, and, in that way, we must hope to build a country and a world in which, whatever our religions, we can live together in peace and harmony.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, most terrorist movements, such as the Tamil Tigers and the IRA, have no global agenda. But those that have such an agenda and an ostensible religious basis, sadly, operate in the name of Islam. I do not wish to encourage Islamophobia—rather, the reverse. I am therefore grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the opportunity to discuss those issues, to make distinctions and to suggest interfaith responses.
	The vast majority of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims are peaceable, law-abiding and often renowned for gracious hospitality. But recent years have seen a disturbing rise in terrorist and militant Islamism. Unless we take that seriously, there will be a backlash against all Muslims, as terrorism breeds fear, and fear is irrational. Therefore, I wish briefly to discuss the religious dimension of Islamist militancy in global terrorism and to suggest examples of appropriate responses.
	The Koran contains the oft-quoted verses of peace and of the sword. Resulting inconsistencies have been addressed by the principle of abrogation, in which the later revelations abrogate the earlier and the verses of the sword thereby abrogate the verses of peace. There is therefore a religious mandate in traditional Islam for militant Muslims to undertake jihad—holy war—in its militaristic form rather than limit it to a spiritual interpretation of struggle to live a good life.
	There is also in traditional Islam the division of the world into Dar El Islam and Dar El Harb—the world of Islam and the world of war. In the former, Islam is the ruling power; in the latter, there is an obligation on all Muslims to use all appropriate means to gain supremacy for Islam.
	One means is through militaristic jihad, which is evident in many parts of the world today. In Sudan, the National Islamic Front regime is using military and terrorist policies to promote its Islamist agenda. In Nigeria, religious conflict is exacerbated by foreign jihad warriors armed with sophisticated weapons. In Indonesia, President Megawati's moderate government are trying to contain the activities of Islamist militants, such as Jemaah Islamiyah and the thousands of Lasker Jihad warriors, who have been responsible for the deaths of thousands and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Christians and attacks on Hindus in Central Sulawesi.
	Militant Islamism is also a cause for concern in this country. Recent media headlines report the activities of Abu Hamza. May I be forgiven for mentioning that I have been raising the issue for more than three years? In January 2000, I described in your Lordships' House a film on Channel 4 in 1999, which showed Abu Hamza inciting hatred and violence, teaching terrorist tactics, such as devices to bring down aircraft landing at British airports, and urging everyone in his large audience to develop similar terrorist tactics. Abu Hamza has also allegedly been associated with international terrorism—his son was arrested in Yemen for planning terrorist activities. I have repeatedly asked the Government how many men have been trained in this country by Abu Hamza and other radical Islamist clerics, sent abroad to fight jihads and return with enhanced capacity for terrorist activities here. So far, I have received no reply.
	There is therefore clearly an urgent need for appropriate interfaith responses. They must be realistic. It is often said that the West is to blame, directly or indirectly, through inept foreign policies or because it is deemed to cause poverty, which is a breeding ground for Islamic disaffection and militancy. Although Western foreign policy has not always been right or helpful, and while poverty may encourage recruitment to fundamentalist causes, those are not the root problems. Many of Al'Qaeda's leading terrorists are the well-educated elite. Their statements and behaviour demonstrate motivation by extremist Islamist beliefs.
	One interfaith response that could foster mutual trust would be for moderate Muslims to support publicly the freedom of individuals to change their religion. Freedom of religion is specified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which UN member states have agreed to respect. But imposition of Shari'a law curtails that freedom and has been a contributory factor in terrorist activities and conflicts such as those in Sudan and Nigeria.
	There is also a need to encourage moderate Muslims to contain their terrorist co-religionists. Time permits only one example. On my last visit to Indonesia, I was privileged to help to launch a new interfaith organisation: the International Islamic Christian Organisation for Reconciliation and Reconstruction. Former President Wahid is honorary president. He hopes that we can work together closely to restore traditionally harmonious relationships between Muslims and Christians in areas such as Maluku and Sulawesi, which have been torn apart by conflict, but where moderate traditional Muslim and Christian leaders yearn for peace.
	I conclude with a tribute to one of those moderate Muslim traditional leaders who face reprisals by Islamic militants. His house has been attacked and his car stoned. Discussing the risks of participating in an interfaith meeting he told me, "My daughter said 'Daddy, if you attend that meeting and you are killed, I will be proud of you'". He is an inspiration for us all.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for reconciliation between the great religions is much to be admired.
	Frequently, religion is seen as the cause of wars, and it is said to be the root of many terrorist organisations such as Al'Qaeda, Hezbollah and the sectarian paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. Historically, religion appears to have been the principal reason for many conflicts, including the Thirty Years War, the Crusades, which were fought under the sign of the cross, and the Ottoman conquests, which were fought under the banner of the Prophet. However, we are all aware that power, domination, bitter resentments and tribal enmities—we should think for a moment about today's shocking news from the Congo—are equally important contributory factors to violence and instability.
	It is less easy to find recent examples of large-scale engagements in which religion could reasonably be advanced as the primary cause of conflict. Nor will it have escaped your Lordships' notice that, in Iraq, there is bitter irony in any comparison of the efforts made by coalition forces at Najaf and Karbala to protect two of the holiest cities in the Shia religion with the depredations of Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny. That said, I readily concede that Saddam would dearly like to have turned the war in Iraq into a religious one.
	For examples of religious motivation in current acts of violence, we must look instead at so-called asymmetric warfare, of which terrorism is one representation. Asymmetric conflicts involving largely Christian minorities include those in East Timor, southern Sudan—to which the noble Baroness just referred and which I visited last September—where close on 2 million people have died, Pakistan and northern Nigeria, among others. If there is state oppression, individuals often strike back in the name of their religion. The discontent motivating fundamentalist Islamic militarism is not primarily or even significantly the result of religious persecution; it is more a product of oppression, frustration, poverty, lack of a political voice and damaged pride.
	If we in the West seriously wish to tackle the growing threat from what is simplistically referred to as Islamic terrorism, we should consider in depth the whole range of underlying causes of terrorism, rather than attributing it to religious differences. Anyone who has visited Palestinian refugee camps—my noble friend Lord Wright of Richmond referred to that issue—knows that the hopelessness festering there will inevitably breed another generation of suicide bombers, if the cause is not tackled.
	In addition to tackling the underlying causes of alienation, we should ensure that the centrally declared tenet of western foreign policy should be the world-wide promotion of freedom of religion and conscience. That would be the best antidote to religiously influenced terrorism. What regime exists anywhere in the world that respects freedom of religion and conscience and is also a haven for terrorists? There is none.
	A government's guarantee of freedom of religion and conscience is a cornerstone of a democratic society. Without religious freedom, society is destabilised, deep tensions are created and human dignity is impaired. Where freedom of religion and belief is protected, religiously motivated terrorism will not take root. That will be a major challenge for Islamic societies, but not only for them. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, the rise of Hindu nationalism in India and the growing religious tensions in eastern Europe illustrate that the problem is spread far and wide.
	We must be better informed in assessing the situation in individual countries. We could do worse than emulate the United States' International Religious Freedom Act and its appointment of an ambassador-at-large, with a mandate to report annually to Congress on the situation in particular countries. If freedom of religion and conscience is upheld and underlying political grievances are addressed, the causes of religious terrorism will be assuaged. It that does not happen, the future will, I fear, be bleak, and there will be continued threats to global stability and security.
	It is timely and welcome that your Lordships should debate such important matters. We are all indebted to the right reverend Prelate for enabling us to do so.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has worked for a long time as co-chair of the Council for Christians and Jews. That should be acknowledged this afternoon. He is to be warmly congratulated on introducing a debate that it would be an understatement to describe as timely.
	I shall take a Jewish starting-point and quote from the Chief Rabbi's book The Dignity of Difference. He writes:
	XOne of the great transformations from the 20th to the 21st century is that whereas the former was dominated by the politics of ideology, we are now entering an age of the politics of identity".
	He goes on to observe, perhaps less uncontroversially:
	XThat is why religion has emerged, after a long eclipse, to become so powerful a presence on the world stage, because religion is one of the great answers to the question of identity".
	I wonder whether there is some mileage in examining more closely the supposed shift from ideology to identity and the re-emergence—the possible re-emergence—of religion as a serious player on the world stage, including Europe. The concept "From ideology to identity" explains many shifts in our national life that come, again and again, before your Lordships' House, in debate and legislation. The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill is one example. The phenomenon of the re-appearance of the chough—a cousin of the crow—with its red bill is described as symbolic of Cornwall. I am not being facetious; I am making a serious point. So many of our attitudes and motivations show a discernible shift from being based on ideology—what we should do on the basis of commonly held political, social or religious views—to being based on identity—who we are in relation to others—with an increasing concentration on boundaries that must be defined and, perhaps, exerted in exclusive ways that can lead to violence, among other things. Al'Qaeda has an ideology, but its ideology is predicated on a strong and exclusive sense of identity.
	Secondly, there is the suggestion that, in this changing world, religion is re-emerging because it provides for people one of the answers to the question of identity. Here, I know, we are on tricky ground, but it is right that the debate should encourage us to get onto that ground. I support that suggestion, but not out of any triumphalist sense of relief that, somehow, we can turn the clock back to a pre-Enlightenment view of faith and the world. Anachronism—in philosophy, religion or politics—has never served us well. I welcome the suggestion because it explains many tendencies, including the threat of global terrorism, the export of religious hatred from the Indian sub-continent to this country, which we have discussed in the Select Committee on Religious Offences, as well as more mundane manifestations, such as the increased interest in religion as personal therapy and as a form of self-exploration through new routes that is apparent in bookstalls up and down the country.
	In facing such changes, we must grapple with the question of fundamentalism. It is not the same as being traditional or traditionalist. Fundamentalism is another post-Enlightenment phenomenon, first applied to religion as a reaction to excessive change. It can be applied to other areas of life, politics included. A fundamentalist assessment or judgment is usually a bad one; it is easy and quick and applies the letter of the law in an outmoded way in a search for rigidity, in order to take a stand and be seen to take a stand. It is based on identity, rather than ideology. Fundamentalism's main symptom, besides fear, is an inability to be self-critical. Fundamentalism can come across in secularist ways. Secularist fundamentalists, for example, blink at the popularity of church schools in our Muslim and Jewish communities.
	As we all know, when we want to make a point strongly—never in your Lordships' House, of course—violence can be a form of communication. The great spiritual traditions of the world's religions contain many strands of profound self-criticism that have pared those traditions of distorted dogma, the seedbed of violence as a way of life. Religious self-criticism is not the preserve of the theologian; it should be the equipment of every struggling believer, including the religious atheists in our midst. Nor does self-criticism lead to a bloodless, cerebral set of beliefs; it can clarify and, I would suggest, help to make us humble.
	Fifty-eight years ago today, a German Lutheran pastor was executed in the closing weeks of World War II for his part in the attempt to kill the Nazi dictator a year earlier. Dietrich Bonhoeffer can be properly described as the patron saint of religious self-criticism. He was acutely aware of the need to be faithful to one's religious tradition and to one's belief in its uniqueness, but, at the same time, to be aware of a much changing and exciting world. It is a vocation that I would say is worth following.

Lord Judd: My Lords, Portsmouth is, indeed, fortunate to have the right reverend Prelate among the leaders of that community. This is an important debate, for which we should all be deeply grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford.
	Last night on "Newsnight", my noble friend Lord Filkin was speaking for the Government in response to anxieties expressed by the Islamic community in the United Kingdom about the war in Iraq. He said that while he respected its position, it was based on their faith and he seemed to imply that, for that reason, the difference in perception between it and the Government could not be bridged.
	I wonder if he and the Government would reflect on that. Does not such an approach tend to institutionalise divisions within our society? Can it not be interpreted as the language of exclusiveness rather than inclusiveness? The Islamic community is every bit as much part of the United Kingdom as any other community. In our democracy the insights and global connections which Islamic culture brings to our national life should be welcomed and seriously considered, not, perhaps inadvertently, portrayed as something to be sidelined as separate and predictable.
	We are faced with a paradox. The world is inescapably interdependent. But it is deeply divided between those with power and the excluded. We can advocate the redistribution of wealth and resources. We can call for greater social justice. But these, without a redistribution of power, will not, of themselves, bring global stability. The strength of burning resentment at disempowerment cannot be overestimated.
	In Chechnya, the Middle East and, now, the Gulf, the intransigence of Russia and the West—not to mention Israel—is counterproductive. It has marginalised the moderates and played into the hands of the extremists who seize the flag of faith for their fundamentalist cause and as their rallying point for the dispossessed.
	Meanwhile, in the West, our own value system has become dominated by materialism, by ego-centricity and by quantitative concerns. Indeed, too often our education system is ever more preoccupied with quantity. This culture exacerbates hostility and anger of the dispossessed. It is, I suggest, no accident that amid such selfishness in the United Kingdom and the United States our own simplistic, fundamentalist sects become attractive to some, with their emphasis on a vertical link to God, on self and on personal salvation to the exclusion of social responsibility.
	Truth is complex. We need to rediscover the challenge of facing up to that complexity. We need to celebrate diversity and enjoy dialogue. We need to value creativity and originality. We need, above all, to rekindle tolerance, humility, mutual respect and understanding as the hallmarks of civilisation. Wisdom and intellectualism, as distinct from cleverness with its blinkered arrogance, should be at a premium.
	With that wisdom and intellectualism, and with them reasserted in our educational system, we may, I hope, come to see that morality has more to do with distinguishing between the good and helpful compromise and the unacceptable compromise than it has to do with denying the validity of compromise at all.
	After the horrors of September 11th, President Bush allowed himself to use the fateful word "crusade". History never repeats itself, but there are profound lessons to be learnt from it. The Normans and the Franks were, of course, however dressed up in faith, driven by a search for new land. But what Steven Runciman wrote in A History of the Crusades is perhaps highly relevant to our immediate situation. He wrote:
	XThe triumphs of the Crusades were triumphs of faith. But faith without wisdom is a dangerous thing. By the inexorable laws of history the whole world pays for the crimes and follies of each of its citizens.
	In the long sequence of interaction and fusion between Orient and Occident out of which our civilization has grown, the Crusades were a tragic and destructive episode.
	The historian as he gazes back across the centuries at their gallant story must find his admiration overcast by sorrow at the witness that it bears to the limitations of human nature.
	There was so much courage and so little honour, so much devotion and so little understanding.
	High ideals were besmirched by cruelty and greed, enterprise and endurance by a blind narrow self righteousness; and the Holy War itself was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God, which is a sin against the Holy Ghost".

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, on 15th October 1999, approximately four weeks before the unfair and unjust eradication of 650 hereditary Peers from your Lordships' House, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury moved a Motion to draw attention to the role of religion in effectively promoting international order and doing away with international disorder.
	Eight of your Lordships who have spoken today spoke in that debate. It was quite a remarkable debate, on a Friday—a fish day. None of the right reverend Prelates present today spoke then. I recall, at that time, the words from the prayer used by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth today—that is, setting aside
	Xall private interests, prejudices and partial affections".
	That is what we must do if we are to combat what is taking place in the world today. In preparing for the debate, I looked at some of my old school books trying to remember. I found reference to a great chap—Titus Livius Patavinus—who wrote 14 years, or thereabouts, after the death of our Lord, that one should forget not the nature of the war or the nature of the enemy. The question is: are we talking about enemies, and what is the enemy?
	During debates on the terrorism Bill, I took the liberty of asking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, whether, if I wrote to him, he would be kind enough to define the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. He said that it would be rather difficult and that he would prefer that I did not write. So I did not write.
	On looking at the 240 countries or so in the world, I asked how many were dictatorships—whether led by a king or by a ruler? And if a country has a ruler or a king, is he malevolent or benevolent? Of course, we must accept that the majority of countries in this world are dictatorships in one form or another. But who is the enemy, if there is an enemy, and who are the friends?
	Of course, the friends are religion and the Church. If we concentrate more on the 3.5 billion people who are people of the book—that is, Jews, Christians andMuslims—they all say "Don't kill". The Koran says,
	XHe who kills shall surely himself be killed".
	Therefore, aggression and death is against all these three religions. I shall not go on to other parts of the world. But in the previous debate I declared my interests and said that having been involved with trade I had the advantage or the disadvantage of sitting down in almost all the terrorist—or so-called terrorist—areas of the Middle East, with Prelates, great men and others, debating the role of religion.
	The strange thing is that on looking at the trade routes, from the silk route and others, one can see that everyone ended up on the pilgrim route to Dakar. If one looks at the distribution of people of Jewish faith—approximately 20 million in the world—one sees that the biggest group is, of course, in Israel itself, then in Dakar, then in Sao Paolo, and then in New York. But the number of Jews in the world is relatively small—the same number as Sikhs. Moreover, on looking at the number of Muslims—842 million—or those who may promote themselves as such, and Christians, one realises that there are divisions in religious society.
	But what is terrorism? Terrorism is government by fear. I believe that a terrorist is someone who uses fear to coerce governments or to coerce the community. Therefore anyone who uses fear or terror is in effect a terrorist. When we publish information that frightens the public about sarin and other toxic substances, we border on being terrorists. The United States too has frightened people. It could be argued that the Government of Iraq are a terrorist body.
	One of the difficulties and the beauties of the English language—Churchill remarked that Britons and Americans are two peoples separated by a common language—is its interpretation. I find it difficult to accept the fact that there is a "war on terrorism"; that we must combat terrorism is important. Furthermore, two of the more vital factors in all this are the use of religion and the prevention of misinterpretation.
	I find that those factors bring three things to people's minds. First, they look for a reason. If they find that the reason is not acceptable, they look for an excuse. Finally, they may have a motive. But the reasons, excuses and motives behind terrorist activities in the world are still very unclear to me.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I shall concentrate on interfaith responses. I have to declare a non-financial interest as a co-founder of the Ammerdown Centre, situated in Somerset near Bath and Bristol. It adjoins my family's traditional home and benefits from gardens, woods and parkland. It opened in 1973 as a residential centre for ecumenical Christian renewal, with an open approach to all aspects of life in the South West and beyond.
	Very soon it was actively engaged in Christian-Jewish dialogue. This broadened into interfaith studies and encounters. Today we support the search for ethics acceptable to the major monotheistic faiths. Like Dr Hans Kung and others, we see such agreed ethics as an essential foundation for long-term peace, in particular in the Middle East, although of course not only there.
	The coming year's programme includes a Jewish-Christian summer school, Islamic and Hindu insights into peace-making, a study on non-violence in Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Christian approaches to peace-making and introductions to Buddhism. Many other courses deal with aspects of caring and social service. Every month there is a Taize prayer group, as well as interfaith prayer.
	Ammerdown is committed to the theme of reconciliation in all its facets. The trustees wish to help improve race and community relations in Britain, while contributing in any way they can to world-wide peace. At the moment an appeal is in hand to bring the premises up to the requirements of the 21st century and to provide specialist services for some users.
	I move now from Somerset to Bosnia in the former Yugoslavia. There, the Reverend Donald Reeves has been successful in bringing together a civic forum in the city of Banja Luka in an area which saw ethnic clearances and atrocities. The forum includes several cultural and political traditions. He has established a project called the "Soul of Europe" with the aim of rebuilding the Ferhadija mosque. Noble Lords may know that this place of worship was built in the 16th century by Sinan, the great Ottoman architect. The beautifully decorated building, situated in the centre of the city, was loved by Serbs and Croats as well as by Muslim Bosnians. Towards the end of the fighting it was totally destroyed, along with 16 other mosques and 10 Catholic churches.
	Why, one may ask, should an ancient mosque with no large congregation now be rebuilt? I think there are two reasons. The first is one of justice. It is not right that a small group of extreme nationalists, not representative of most Bosnian Serbs, should be allowed to remove every trace of Islam as if it had never existed. Ethnic clearance and cultural genocide cannot be allowed to prevail.
	The second reason is co-operation. This project is the first of its kind anywhere in Yugoslavia or south-eastern Europe. It follows a trail already blazed by St Ethelburga's in the City of London. It is highly significant to the 15 million or so European Muslims. The building can and should be rebuilt by all the faiths working together. It will symbolise the coexistence of Muslims, Christians and Jews that was so typical of life in Sarajevo over many centuries. It points to the kind of plural and culturally diverse Europe that we all want to see rising from the ashes of recent wars. It could provide a good omen for a peaceful Middle East.
	Fundraising for the project starts this year. I commend the Soul of Europe project and I trust that your Lordships will help it to create a solid bridge of reconciliation.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, perhaps I may draw the attention of noble Lords to working paper 9074, published by the US National Bureau of Economic Research in September 2002. This paper studies the complex issue of terrorism, its nature and its causes. Time does not allow me to describe the surveys and analyses within the paper, but the writers agree with my noble friend Lord Desai. They conclude that terrorism is not a cry of anger and rage against poverty and deprivation, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and other noble Lords seem to suggest. It is a violent form of political engagement; violence carried out largely by middle class people.
	That rings true for me. First, it rings true because of the huge number of people of all faiths who condemn terrorists acting in the name of God. They condemn terrorists for distorting and perverting religious precepts. As other noble Lords have said, it is a source of deep concern and worry to most Muslims, most Jews and most Christians that religions of peace can be hijacked in this way in order to convince many, especially the young, that violence is the correct path to God.
	Secondly, it rings true because although some who commit acts of terror may claim to be acting in the name of God, they are but the tip of the iceberg. Behind them lie the recruiters, the information gatherers, the bomb makers and the trainers. The bureau paper implies that all those support mechanisms are politically motivated, middle class and use religious zealots to commit political violence masquerading as a violent form of theological discourse. I have used the word "masquerading" because this is not religion. It is the violent politicisation of religion.
	I agree with my noble friend Lord Desai. What terrorists are attacking is not our religious belief, but our liberal democracy. To defend it, we have to do far more than simply break the link between religion and terrorism. We have to show that maintaining that link negates the essence of our traditional way of life. Otherwise we shall fall into the trap of demonising faith communities. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford that there is absolutely no justification for attacking the Muslim community as a whole for the actions of the few who undertake suicidal attacks and claim to act on behalf of Islam.
	Similarly, there is absolutely no justification for attacking Jews in Europe because of those whose actions are perceived to be abusing the human rights of Palestinians. All of us should be alarmed at the reported attacks on Muslims in America, which have grown by some 1,700 per cent since 9/11. Equally, we should all be alarmed at the rise of anti-Semitism, which is undoubtedly flaring up again at this time of heightened international and Middle East tension.
	Here I must declare an interest and recommend to noble Lords a book, soon to be published, of recent essays on the current position with regard to anti-Semitism. It was commissioned by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, of which I have the honour to be the current president. The institute has a long and distinguished record, in particular in the fight against anti-Semitism, racism and "enophobia. This work throws much-needed light on a phenomenon that has generated heated debate over recent months. But readers will be struck by the similarities between the expression of anti-Jewish prejudice and the course and development of Islamophobia.
	This brings me to the ecumenism to which the right reverend Prelate referred. I congratulate him on introducing the debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth is right. Ecumenism can teach us to value the differences that make up mankind. This is what makes interfaith work important.
	Of course nothing replaces good relations as a means towards understanding and tolerance; of course it has an important place in our liberal society. But it is this very liberal society we are defending against terrorism. We are defending our liberal ideals; our way of life. So those involved in interfaith work have to address the circumstances which allow terrorism to become the means of attacking not only our spiritual and theological beliefs but our way of life.
	This means stepping outside the relatively safe dialogue or trialogue on matters spiritual and theological. It means also addressing the issues of human rights abuses, social justice, the suppression of cultural and educational expression, our desire for self-determination. These are the things that terrorism sets out to attack; these are the issues to which we have to give precedence; these are the values that we hold in common.
	I agree with my noble friend Lord Janner that mutual understanding and respect for our religious traditions are important, but they cannot come first in the face of terrorism if we are to build a safer world and cohesive societies on the basis of our common concern for the fate of humanity.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, it is just possible that the Minister may recall an intervention I made in an earlier debate on Afghanistan when I suggested that the pathogen of global terrorism could not be cured with a Harry Potter solution because it was essentially a Lord of the Rings problem. By that I meant that the use of deadly fireworks such as we have witnessed recently over Baghdad can destroy only a visible enemy on the battlefield; it is not expected to win over the hearts and closed minds of a religious population contained in homes darkened by war.
	So how can we identify what has gone wrong with a religion that can breed the violence of 9/11 and its aftermath all around the globe? For a start, it might be helpful if the leaders of an interfaith response could define for lay people what constitutes "spiritual religion" and what constitutes "political religion".
	The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury may have partially supplied the answer in this year's Dimbleby Lecture. If I can paraphrase his words, he said:
	Xthe true believer in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim worlds"—
	to which I would add the Hindu and Buddhist worlds—
	Xmust first seek an awareness of his or her relationship with the eternal".
	As someone who is a devout pantheist at heart, I feel sure that these words are an acceptable basis of "spiritual religion" as conceived by individual worshippers from all faiths and those who have none.
	The most reverend Primate went on to say that,
	Xpolitical or institutional religion has a history of violence . . . and that religions have work to do intellectually to defend their basic credibility".
	If the most reverend Primate is saying that elements of the world's great religions have had to resort to political fundamentalism because the tenets of their religion have become out of date, then I would have to agree with him. And if this has led to an increased political fundamentalism in Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim and Hindu societies because their leaders have failed to deliver the eternal hopes and visions of their congregations, then I would also agree with him.
	Therefore, is it not a matter of urgency that the intellectual repair work recommended by the most reverend Primate is for religions to modernise without delay by adapting to the global information explosion brought by the Internet, which will be available to every child on the planet soon and which will become the main educational tool for societies in the future?
	Is it not a fact that fundamentalist regimes can stay in power only by denying education and information to their people from the earliest age? The madrasahs of fundamentalist Islamic regimes are no substitute for proper schooling and were courageously exposed by Dr Mahatir Mohammed, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, on 29th July 2001 when he said:
	XIn Malaysia, many of the Malays have had their minds controlled through the abuse of religious teachings by the fundamental Islamic party".
	He went on to say that Malay children in the fundamentalist states of Malaysia were denied access to science and technology in the madrasahs because their leaders said that it was against the Koran. This is a distortion of true religion.
	By the same token, I understand that some states with fundamentalist Christian administrations in America exclude the works of Darwin from the official educational curriculum because they are considered to be at variance with the book of Genesis. This is a distortion of true science.
	Is there any way forward for the future, where the Government and interfaith leaders can agree how political fundamentalism can be stifled at birth and true science and technology taught to our children? As I see it, this can be achieved only by opening the doors of independent single-faith schools to children of all faiths, including those who have none.
	This week the Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees, predicted that the risk factor in scientific progress is so high that humankind may not outlive the 21st century. Whether the end comes from the impact of a 10-kilometre asteroid or from a suicidal despot's Doomsday machine is quite immaterial; the end of the world is indeed at hand.
	However, all may not be lost, for according to Sir Martin and my noble friend Lady Greenfield it will not be long before human beings can transcend biology by merging with computers to download their brains into silicone hardware, thus recreating themselves as resurrection clones.
	Meanwhile, back in the real world, we are still waiting with bated breath for Christendom to agree the computus for Easter Sunday, on which it has been working diligently since the Council of Nicea some 1,678 years ago.
	It is my considered view that if the world's great religions are to maintain their credibility with their congregations over the next 10 decades they will have to find answers to the entirely new ethical dilemmas posed by space exploration, designer genes, robotics and nanotechnology, to name but a few. If they do not, their only alternative is to revert to fundamentalism.

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this important issue.
	Some people today would say that any discussion about global terrorism is a discussion about the subversion of the moral argument, propaganda and deception. We are discussing global terrorism and yet most noble Lords who have spoken so far have referred to Muslims and terrorism. From the outset I should like to repeat that there is no such thing as "Islamic terrorism", which is the creation of silly, irresponsible and extremely dangerous spin.
	Like all major religions of the world, Islam does not promote terrorism; it is a religion of peace. But when Muslims feel that they are being oppressed, that they are not getting a fair deal, they react very much like other oppressed people in the world.
	The noble Lord, Lord Janner, said that in India he met a leader who said,
	XWhere there is terror you cannot have a dialogue".
	You also cannot have a dialogue and peace while there is state terrorism, oppression, rape and torture in countries such as Kashmir.
	While we must condemn acts of terror we must also strive to understand the reasons for the terrorists' anger and reaction, however irrational or unacceptable they may seem to us. When the US Navy ship was recently attacked on the coast of Yemen, it should have reminded us that Japanese kamikaze pilots blew up the "Prince of Wales" as she sailed towards Singapore and Burma in the 1940s. Even then there were suicide bombings.
	But history has shown us that it has a strange relationship with the people we call "terrorists" today. Most of those we consider to be terrorists are regarded by their own people as freedom fighters. Of course, "terrorists" such as Mao, Jomo Kenyatta, Mr Begin, the former Prime Minister of Israel, and Mandela are now acknowledged as legitimate leaders in their own countries. I wonder how George Washington was seen by the British government when he fought for American independence.
	I would like to say a few words about British Muslims. Many young people are resentful and feel utterly marginalised in a society that continues to be racist and Islamophobic. Yet, as all signs point to dangerous situations developing in our inner cities, the authorities seem oblivious to what is going on. There is a common perception that the Home Office and the Foreign Office have tried to create a new leadership within the Muslim community and, in the process, have deliberately marginalised legitimate leaders of the community—imams, councillors, parliamentarians and grass-roots activists. I am afraid this is not the time to play politics with the community.
	A few years ago, many of us celebrated the creation of the Muslim Council of Britain, as an umbrella organisation of the Muslim community based on the structures of boards of deputies. Unfortunately, the MCB has failed to provide leadership and does not relate to the issues of ordinary British Muslims. It is seen more as a middle-class club for a certain section of the community rather than a grass-roots organisation.
	We have a community in which individuals elevate themselves to be judges of the Sharia court and groups call themselves the Muslim Parliament of the UK, giving the impression that they have judicial and legislative powers. There are many individuals running Sharia councils for marriage and divorce purposes. I fear that unqualified individuals will practise illegal acts too.
	I believe that there has to be a minimum qualification for the imams, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said; Dr Zaki Badawi has also been saying the same thing. It would be desirable for imams to communicate in English to engage with our youth who no longer speak Urdu, Punjabi or Gujarati. This will bridge the gap that exists between the mosque and the British Muslim youth who are in search of their identity. A growing number of Muslim youth have been influenced by extreme ideologies in colleges and universities. Of course "rent a quote" organisations create problems in the Muslim community as well as in mainstream society.
	Finally, let me make it clear that the majority of our people here in Britain want the same as their brethren anywhere in the world—to have respect, to be listened to, to be appreciated and to be taken seriously. They want to engage, participate and work with others. These are historic times for all of us—a time to build bridges, initiate dialogue and deal with real issues affecting real people. Otherwise, we will all reap the dire consequences of our myopic and partisan initiatives.

Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, I, too, am very grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. I am glad to have heard the contributions from so many of your Lordships. I want to limit my contribution to some considerations of interfaith relationships within this country.
	There is no doubt that global terrorism and the military conflict have had a negative impact on many of our faith communities. There is heightened anxiety and tension. I am glad to have heard the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, speak about British Muslims; there is more anxiety among British Muslims and in the Jewish community. It is harder to hear the moderate voices because they are vulnerable to suspicion within their own communities. There sometimes seems to be a conflict between loyalty to the United Kingdom and the solidarity that wants to be expressed with faith communities throughout the world. There is particular anxiety among Asian Christians in this country and in other parts of the world.
	The heightened tension in the world has had a positive impact on interfaith relationships. Those that were strong already have been immensely strengthened by a determination to stand together in solidarity with each other. Many new initiatives have been taken in places where they were not already strong.
	The Churches Commission for Inter-faith Relations, of which I am moderator, issued a leaflet inviting local communities to undertake certain activities together in order to strengthen the role of faith communities within the whole of community life. Mention has been already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, of the invaluable work of the interfaith network which has brought people together in friendship. Those friendships remain strong and provide a strong framework within which new relationships can be made.
	I also want to recommend to your Lordships the material that is offered for the week of prayer for world peace, which happens each October. It draws on the sacred writings of all the major faiths in order to offer help to other communities.
	There is much work going on. One of the strong pulls is through the respect initiative which grew out of the wonderful, magnificent shared act of reflection and celebration which was held in the Royal Gallery in the millennium. Out of that has flown the very rich stream which is engaging young people to work together in local communities and form friendships across what seem to be barriers in order to make strong relationships upon which communities in Britain can find their own strength.
	As has been said, all religions speak peace and want to act against violence. Most recognise that there is a higher authority to whom we are accountable and most seek the common good.
	If your Lordships will allow me, I want to offer a simple reflection which comes from the core document of my own faith. Jesus was having a conversation with a lawyer who was troubled in his mind about what faith meant, as to how to relate both to his God and to the community, to whom he had a duty of care. Jesus told him a story about a man who was set upon by thieves and left wounded at the roadside. He was completely ignored by two respected religious leaders of his own faith community and was cared for by a member of a different faith altogether, at great cost to himself. Jesus said, "Go and do likewise". I recognise that it is very much easier to give comfort, support and help to the wounded victim at the roadside than to address the issue of the robbers in their act of terrorism. The only record that I can find of what help Jesus gave in dealing with that is that he said, "Love your enemies and do good to those who hate you". But there is not a great deal of strategy that we can gain from that.
	I believe strongly that the suspicion, the hatred, the blame, the in-fighting of one religion with another cannot help in any way in addressing the global terrorism in which all are involved. We need to find those parts of our faith which can give a strong lead.
	Early in this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, spoke about the ideology which says, "In God's name, kill". I think all faiths will also say, "In God's name, do good and seek peace and pursue it". If we work together in a strong coalition of faith, in this country and elsewhere, surely there is hope for the future.
	Whenever I say the Lord's Prayer, I say, "Thy kingdom come", and I believe that that means for every single person on Earth.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I fear I will offend against the law of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, by joining in this debate at all. We no longer call ourselves a Christian nation.
	We benefit from many religious minorities and, along with them, a strong sense of religious revival. This may, to some extent, be a mourning for our lost religion and especially for a sense of values. We live by humanitarian and not religious rules. Yet many of us who are called Anglican long for the certainty of faith expressed over so many years by our own saints and martyrs. That makes some of us envious of other faiths, as though reluctantly accepting that no revival can ever quite bring us back to where we were. Diversity, instead, is the fashion of our generation.
	I remember the innocence of the 1960s, when so many of us left home and traditional religion in search of other ideas and cultures. In my case, the destination was the shrine of a famous Muslim saint, in Nizamuddin, on the southern edge of Delhi.
	Looking back, I recognise how well insulated Anglo-Saxons have been in the past century. It is true that it took a fighting spirit to win through two wars and keep others at a distance, but we have to admit the extent to which our privileged caste and our island mentality has kept us away from the world's horrors. Those of us who have continually travelled and visited the poorest countries see how fortunate we are materially yet how deprived we are spiritually. We must recognise that we now live in a changed world in which even diversity is not enough if it has no legal framework. Globalisation has brought improved communications and, perhaps, fairer trade, but it has also forced societies into much tighter arrangements, sometimes against their will.
	Countries cannot be squeezed into convenient brackets of tolerance and human rights, just to suit our international lawyers. As noble Lords have said in previous debates, and as the writer Malise Ruthven has described in his new book, A Fury for God, a Manichaean spirit is abroad—a belief that we live in a time of good and evil. We easily assume that all the evil is on the other side, in the Middle East. Yet those who have observed the plight of Palestinians at close quarters see it differently. In his analysis of the Al'Qaeda, Ruthven refers to Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian scholar who wrote In the Shadow of the Koran in prison and was hanged in 1966, aged 60, as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Qutb is a symbol for many educated Muslims who have been, or felt, corrupted by Western civilisation and have rejected American ideals as the embodiment of evil.
	Only through such writers can we glimpse the vision of young fanatics all the way from Karachi to Jerusalem, reading the Koran, as many read the Old Testament, who believe that their only way out is the ultimate personal sacrifice. It is an historic religious act, not confined to Islam, but described by all who have witnessed martyrdom throughout the ages. Like so much in the Bible that we have left behind, some of the precepts are easily distorted. While martyrdom is claimed to be acceptable in Islam, suicide has not been sanctioned at any time since the 7th century, when various hadith, or sayings of the Prophet, unambiguously condemned it.
	I agree that religion can be no excuse for terrorism, but it may help us to understand it. There are few of us here, if any—even refugees from the ghettos—who have had the experience that develops the mindset of the suicide bomber. I fully take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, about the people who are behind that person. But to understand that, I still believe that we must look not only to the Al'Qaeda elite but to the situation of the oppressed. There is no time to go into the Palestinian situation, to which noble Lords have already referred, but reports show how moderate Palestinians feel under occupation—not the fanatics. We know from many sources how close to the margin they are living. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, I believe that, while they are deemed to be terrorists, they are themselves the victims of terror.
	The images that we in the charities are determined to present of a peaceful world of interfaith dialogue, of reconciliation and conflict, of free and fair trade, necessary as they are to us and our supporters and even to our religion, are still pitifully removed from the realities of war, violence, suicide and other forms of brutality that dominate the news. Like other noble Lords, I feel that we can only work harder towards reconciliation. We can only reconcile the two extremes through a greater mutual effort to understand the drama of individual human life struggles.
	Finally, I can testify to one very effective interfaith channel, in relation to humanitarian aid in the Middle East. I refer to the partnership between Christian Aid and organisations such as Islamic Relief. The benefits of that are felt at both ends, in the field and equally by those supporters in communities such as those in Birmingham who may be experiencing a partnership with another faith for the first time. These are the means by which we can defeat the appalling mistrust bred by terrorism.

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for enabling your Lordships' House to debate this important issue at this significant time in history.
	It would be idle to deny that there is a religious element in many conflicts that face the world today. Superficially, it would be easy to portray the current war in Iraq as a war between Christianity and Islam. There are fundamentalist Christian voices in Bible belt America speaking the language of crusade. There are Islamic voices of protest on the streets of Cairo, Oman and throughout the Middle East shouting the language of jihad. But the ideology of Saddam Hussein and the regime he led was more akin to secular fascism than to Islam. Indeed, bin Laden regarded him as one of his bitterest enemies because of his disinterest in Islam. The fact is that Christians and Muslims were to be found among Saddam Hussein's closest Ministers, and Christians and Muslims together with those of other faiths will have to be involved in rebuilding Iraq, if it is to have a more peaceful and prosperous future.
	Of course, there are fundamentalist Muslims involved in global terrorism but, lest we think that Islam has a monopoly in such terror, stories in the news today might point us in a different direction. President Bush has met the Prime Minister in Belfast and engaged with the leaders of political parties in Northern Ireland, seeking to build a democratic and peaceful future in that land. Such a hope would have seemed a utopian dream a couple of decades ago, when terror was common currency on all sides, and Roman Catholicism and Protestantism gave a spiritual undergirding for some of that terror. It is ironic, is it not, that British troops have been so skilled in combating terror on the streets of Basra because of their long experience of combating terror on the streets of London and Belfast?
	Another news story today involves yet another great world religion. A new Jewish enclave or fortress has been built in the heart of East Jerusalem in a traditional Palestinian sector. Please God that that symbol does not become one more trigger point for more acts of terror. Nor is it only the Abrahamic faiths—the faiths of the Book—that are prone to terrorist acts.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, for her encouraging words about the work of the interfaith network of Britain and Ireland. I co-chair that network, which exists to promote harmony, respect and co-operation between the world faiths in Britain. We try hard not to be diverted by overseas issues, but global issues have a habit of breaking in—not just Iraq or the situation in Israel/Palestine, but disputes involving other faiths.
	We have been most exercised by the strong feelings engendered in the UK by the destruction by Hindus of the 400-year old mosque in Ayodhya because it was claimed on the site of a previous Hindu temple marking the birthplace of Ram. Last year, a train carrying 500 Hindus back from a gathering was attacked and set on fire, and some 58 adults and children were burned alive. Following those deaths, as many as 2,000 Muslims were killed in rioting in Gujarat. Meanwhile, the dispute about self-determination in Kashmir is a longstanding sore between Muslims and Hindus.
	With all of that accumulated evidence, I for one do not need convincing that there often is a religious element in global terrorism. There are always those who are prepared not only to die for their faith but to kill for it.
	But that is not the whole story. For, if religion is part of the problem of terrorism, it is also part of the solution. All the world's religions, by their very proximity today, are challenged to ask each other what they most deeply believe, and to see how far they can share those beliefs, in order to draw strength from each other on behalf of the human family so as to save it from failure. All of us who are people of faith are faced with the challenge of trying to promote respect for people of other faith traditions and to co-operate with them where possible, at the same time trying to ensure that we are not diluting the essential truth of our own faith but finding fresh and positive ways of living it out.
	We should gain encouragement from the experience of 12th and 13th century Spain, where there was an ideological overlap between Islam and Christianity which enriched both religions. Islam was the vehicle by which Christian scholars rediscovered the classical heritage of Aristotle and Plato; and, out of that, St Thomas Aquinas formulated a systematic account of practical faith and civic action which still undergirds much of Christian thinking today.
	The ingredients in our religious dialogue are plain: how to disagree with dignity and respect; how to disagree with tolerance; where to bear distinctive witness; the understanding that everyone has the right not to become someone else's clone. But, above all, we should not be standing face to face in argument, but standing shoulder to shoulder in meeting the needs of the wider community. When it comes to working together to serve the world, the Jewish scholar, Hillel, put it briefly but well:
	XWhat is hateful to you, don't do to others".

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this is one of those unusual debates which could usefully have been longer. It would have been helpful if we could have heard for longer from those participating. I am grateful to the Government Chief Whip for the fact that, halfway through debate, a note was passed saying that those winding up on this and the Conservative Front Bench could speak for 10 minutes rather than five. I shall struggle not to take the full amount of time.
	We are talking about terrorism and the rationale for terrorism. There have been a whole range of rationales. In terms of state terrorism, there was the Inquisition in Spain, the Gestapo in Nazi Germany and the NKVD in Stalinist Russia. In terms of religious terrorism, there have been assassins, thugs and others; but, most relevant today, those inspired by a rage against the established order, modernity and all the change forced upon traditional society. In 19th and 20th century Europe that was provided by anarchists, revolutionary socialists and nationalists. Today, in much of the developing world, it is provided by those who have found in fundamentalism—most often Muslim, but occasionally Hindu—a rationale for their rage against the modern world.
	I take religion to be a system of belief by which we all live; and in that sense, it is an ideology. What we have seen in the developing world to a great extent is that fundamentalist religion has returned to fill the void left by the collapse in the credibility of Communism and Arab nationalism as creeds for the discontented. We all recognise that in societies that are moving at speed—as was pointed out by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth—from traditional politics and modes of belief to modernity, with all the sharp dislocation of meaning and identity for individuals and groups that that involves, there is a natural tendency for people to want to find an all-encompassing rationale by which they can live.
	The reactions in European societies in the late 19th and early 20th centuries—our own violent, nihilistic and sacrificial ideologies which we saw in Germany, Italy, Russia and elsewhere, and which killed many millions of people across Europe—should give us some limited sympathy and understanding for the problems of a developing world which is going through the same process three or four times as fast as we did. It is easy in Britain to be complacent and to say that we never had a revolution. But Britain moved through these processes much more slowly than any other country which followed us.
	The divide that we now face is between liberal systems of belief—I use the word "liberal" in the broadest sense, not in any partisan sense—and fundamentalist systems. By "liberal belief" I mean an attitude to the world which accepts that we cannot "know" in the final and ultimate sense; that we have to live with uncertainty. We therefore have to tolerate difference, and that requires us to have a generosity of spirit, to be inclusive in our attitude to others rather than exclusive, and to be prepared to compromise. My favourite verse in the Bible is:
	Xand now we see as through a glass, darkly".
	My favourite Apostle is St Thomas, because he doubted. That makes politics possible; and it makes open society possible. But it requires a self-confident society, at peace with itself—like medieval Muslim Spain, or the kingdom of the two Sicilies or 19th century Britain.
	On the opposite side, fundamentalist beliefs require certainty, a world divided between the saved and the damned, between good and evil, between Aryans and Slavs and Jews, between orthodoxy and heresy; between the righteous and unrighteous. If there is no compromise, no form of politics is possible. There are even those who would say, "We are the chosen people, and others are the unchosen". That is a problem for all religions. We Christians certainly need to be well aware of the dark side of Christianity, of our own religious wars, persecution and intolerance, as we look at the intolerance which now mars other religions.
	After all, the Church of England grew out of this and the bitter lessons of near-religious wars within Britain. I grew up within that tradition. However, looking back on it—I say this in the knowledge that the other day I was attacked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for not being sufficiently patriotic in my attitude to Britain—when I first went, as a choirboy at Westminster Abbey, into the choir school at Westminster Cathedral and realised that the people there had a different sense of nationalism and of what was possible, I was deeply shocked. I had grown up with a whole set of unthinking, anti-Catholic prejudices. When I first met a member of my own party who was also a Catholic—his name happens to be Tordoff—I was quite shaken and surprised. In the process, I learnt to be rather more tolerant to other aspects of my own religion and, by extension, to other religions. I am proud that my children have grown up with a large number of Muslim and Hindu friends and have understood that others have systems of belief which are also liberal and which are worthy of respect.
	Fundamentalism in the developing world is rage against the corruption of states and the failure of modernisation—I refer to regimes in the Middle East, in North Africa and in West Africa; for example, Nigeria and the Ivory Coast. It is the discontented young, looking for an answer, with rage against their own states externalised on to the West, which is seen as supporting them, and against the trivialising values, as they see it, of modernity which the West is seen to promote. Terrorism is the outlet. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, a form of asymmetric warfare. We all recognise that this very often applies to the second or third generation in those countries. It is the first educated generation—the children of those who have gained privilege—who do not find the opportunities, the satisfaction or the comfort in a new society, who are among the most rebellious and who are most prepared to sacrifice themselves.
	But we should also be concerned about the drift back to fundamentalism within the West, including within the United States—the divide between "good" and "evil" which simplifies American foreign policy. I am not sure that evil is a term that should be used very often in politics or foreign policy. There are those terrible simplifiers who said that we had a clash of civilisations, and who welcomed that idea. There are those who talk about the United States, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, did in a debate a couple of months ago, as a righteous nation, implying that it is above the law of nations, and that others are less righteous and thus have to obey the law more fully.
	There are those who preach the theology of hatred on American television, as I have watched when I have been over there on many occasions. There are those who attack and kill people in family-planning clinics because that is what God tells them to do, and those who are affected by all the deep anxieties about modernity that fill the American south.
	Then there is the Jewish right, which believes in the right of the Jews to the whole of Israel, with the right to expel Palestinians as necessary. To them, the settlements are God's will. For example, there are those who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin or machine-gunned Islamic believers worshipping at the tomb in Hebron.
	Liberals of all faiths need to stand together in dialogue, and we need to stand up for our beliefs in this country and abroad. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said as he opened the debate, we need to encourage and cherish the Muslim presence in this country as far as we can. The other day as I walked from here towards Westminster Cathedral—it was after all built by the Catholics in Westminster to symbolise that they are accepted in British society—past the Central Hall, I wondered what we will do with the Central Hall after the Methodists have, we hope, reunited with the Church of England. Could it not become the central mosque, as a symbol that Muslims are now also very much part of the religious interfaith community in this country?
	Internationally, we need to think about the symbolism of Jerusalem. It is a holy city for three faiths, and is becoming a contested territory among two of them. We are, we hope, coming out of a war in Iraq, but we have a longer struggle against terrorism. We will win that struggle only if the quality of our values and the confidence of our liberal beliefs are sustained.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, we are all grateful to the right reverend Prelate for introducing his well-crafted Motion calling attention to the religious element in global terrorism and appropriate interfaith responses. Hopefully, the responses can be global too, but we are on firmer ground when we take a local, national approach.
	I am bound to say that one of the more heartening pictures at the start of the war was of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, flanked by the Chief Rabbi and the chairman of the Council of Mosques and Imams, proclaiming that the war was not religious and,
	Xcould only be a limited means to an end".
	That statement had the support of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster. There is, as we know, a large measure of doctrinal agreement between the great religions on their attitude to war and the conduct of it. Peace is infinitely preferable but, in the event of war, it must be conducted humanely with every attempt made to avoid civilian casualties and damage.
	That common theme was given a positive slant by the coalition forces, with their concentration of bombing on command-and-control centres and their affirmation that the war was not against the Iraqi people but for their liberation. The coalition's success in maintaining that stance has been as variable as the fortunes of the war itself. I am sure that we were all happy to see some peaceful scenes emerging from Baghdad today but, regrettably, civilians have been killed and injured, with ugly scenes of carnage and devastation presented on television throughout the world. Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi television presentations have had a tremendous impact on the Arab peoples, who tend to see the war as a United States-led invasion to impose western imperial control on the Middle East.
	People's perception of the war is the key to the all-important battle for hearts and minds everywhere. The propaganda war is very real. If those perceptions result in widespread antagonism, hatred and anger, they provide a rich recruiting ground for terrorists and a hasty, superficial justification for their vengeful activities. Many, including President Mubarak of Egypt, fear that the war will provide a fillip to the terrorist cause.
	We know that a causal starting point for the war was the terrorist attack on New York's twin towers on 9/11. That attack was, as our Prime Minister rightly said,
	Xan affront to people of all faiths and of none".
	It was that event that prompted President Bush to see an axis of evil in Iran, Iraq and North Korea, and to switch from a policy of containment to pre-emptive action against Afghanistan and now Iraq. The aim was to trample on the roots of terrorism, but it was always conceivable that a consequence of war might be an increase in the terrorist threat.
	The second half of the Motion seeks "appropriate interfaith responses". That is right, because terrorism has no part in the mainstreams of the great faiths and will never get their total endorsement. There may be temporary and local support, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, but it is never total, never lasting. The great faiths would never have survived as long as they have were they not conducive to the preservation and betterment of mankind, which terrorism by its very nature is not. It is an aberration; it transgresses the limits, and God does not love transgressors, if I may quote the Koran. I therefore have great faith in the faiths themselves to counter terrorism from within, from their inherent goodness and strength. That does not mean, of course, that they should not be helped in every way, including intellectually and spiritually. There must indeed be dialogue.
	Incidentally, it would be interesting to know the outcome of the Prime Minister's statement of intent on 12th November last year, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, on 16th December, to create bridges of understanding between the faiths and discuss the creation of a specific organisation with the Islamic religious leaders in this country. I am sure that she will give us a report of progress.
	The Islamic world has been in turmoil for some time and its attitude very critical towards western materialism—Xdry, miserable and spiritless", as Osama bin Laden described it. We must evaluate that criticism and try to show that there is a benevolent aspect to material progress. It can improve people's lives. Our ideologies must somehow be reconciled in that context. Jusuf Wanandi of the Centre of Strategic Studies at Jakarta said in an article that we must,
	Xseek to understand why some Islamist movements harbour such profound resentment",
	towards the US and the West. He continued:
	XMany Muslims believe that they have been left behind in the march towards progress".
	In the context of present-day Iraq, the provision of food, water and humanitarian aid is universally recognised as of paramount importance. Along with the reconstruction and development of a successful economy, it is proof positive that we care for the people and their well-being. After the overthrow of Saddam's regime, we must ensure a system of democratic government that meets the needs of the different peoples within Iraq, possibly on a federal basis, to prevent conflict and promote harmony between them.
	Democracy is not easy to establish. I recall a distinguished German, Manfred Rommel, son of the Field Marshal, telling me that democracy would not have survived in West Germany after the war had it not been for the benevolent dictatorship of the Allied occupation forces. There is food for thought in that remark. It makes the American viewpoint on the governance of post-war Iraq understandable. Ultimately, however, as we all know, only good Iraqis can rule Iraq. A sound, democratic system in Iraq could send a powerful signal to the rest of the region where democracy is in short supply. It will not be welcome to all Arab rulers, but there is a widespread feeling that democracy's time has come.
	As so many have said, beyond the frontiers of Iraq, there is the just prospect of a Palestinian state and the "road map" to it. I was delighted to hear President Bush's commitment to the road map yesterday. I talked about the possibility, in Israel, in the 1970s, with Abba Eban, the former Foreign Minister. It was a non-starter then. However, we can no longer doubt that the desperate plight of the Palestinians is a virulent sore which suppurates violence in the Middle East. It has to be healed if peace is to have a chance. The faiths can do much to promote this proposal and hasten its implementation, especially if they act in unison, as I think the right reverend Prelate suggested. We hope that we are on the verge of a new order in the Middle East, but the birth may be painful and the labour prolonged.
	A fundamental prerequisite of any co-operation between the faiths is knowledge and understanding of each other. I say that with an acute sense of my own ignorance. We know something of the diversity of the Western world, its states and religions, but our knowledge of the Islamic world is very limited, and so errors abound in our preconceived ideas and perceptions. We have seen a number of such ideas exploded as myths in the current war. Of course myths can be costly in terms of human life.
	I listened today to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and I noted the exchange that followed his Starred Question on 16th December last year when he asked what the Government meant by "Islamic terrorist", a term deeply offensive to Muslims like himself. Of course terrorism is anathema to mainstream Islam, but that does not prevent terrorists from calling themselves Islamic and seeking endorsement from fundamentalist and radical elements. We must recognise, I think, that there is deep concern across the world about this war and everything related to it. There have been protests in many Western and Islamic countries by people of all faiths. No one can be certain of the ultimate consequences of the war or the outcome of the war against terrorism, but I hope that we all have faith that good will ultimately triumph over evil. We know, too, that that belief is shared by all true believers in all the great faiths. Therein lies our best hope for the future.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for proposing this debate. It has been wide-ranging and extremely stimulating. I cannot recall another recent debate in your Lordships' House where I thought that every contribution was so well argued and so very thoughtful.
	The right reverend Prelate was right to point out that international terrorism continues to pose grave long-term threats to our interests. The terrorist threat from the Al'Qaeda network and the groups and individuals linked to it remains extremely serious, as do the threats from a number of other international terrorist groups. The past year has shown that terrorists will conduct attacks, including against British citizens, in an ever more indiscriminate fashion. The figures behind those tragedies are truly chilling. Eighteen people, including tourists, were killed in Tunisia in April 2002. Seventeen people died in Mombasa in November. Some 202 people, many of them tourists and most of them young, died in Bali on 12th October. Churchgoers have been bombed in Pakistan on a number of occasions. Voluntary health workers, diplomats and expatriates have been murdered in the Middle East.
	The death toll is terrible, but every statistic represents an individual human tragedy—mourning for a family and for friends, and horror for a life cut off in a senseless act of barbarism. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, may be right when he says that although the groups who undertake these outrages are not formally connected, common threads are apparent in their ideology. There are such threads, which may be cultural, religious or political, and we have to examine what they are.
	There have also been successes in the campaign against international terrorism. With our partners, including many Muslim countries, we have disrupted the bases of Al'Qaeda in Afghanistan, and we are working together to set that troubled country back on the long path to stability. Nearly 1.5 million people have returned to that country in a testimony to the hope that they feel for its future. Many of Al'Qaeda's senior leadership have been captured. Most recently, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—the man who planned the 11th September attacks—was detained with the help of the Pakistan authorities.
	As a result of increased law enforcement around the world, about 3,000 terrorists have been put behind bars in Europe, including the United Kingdom, in South East Asia, in the Middle East and in the United States. However, Al'Qaeda still exists. It is still issuing its hideous threats. It is still calling people, mostly young and vulnerable, to its doctrine of hatred, to carry out suicidal acts of terrorism. The latest threats are, of course, against this country and the United States. So the Al'Qaeda network remains dedicated, ingenious and global. The threat remains and will continue. That is the reality that we all face.
	Our efforts to combat this threat take many forms. The successes of our police and intelligence services, supported as appropriate by our Armed Forces, are rightly praised in public. What we do not hear enough of is the fact that that is a dangerous and difficult task which they undertake on our behalf. It demands dedicated professionalism, experience and real courage to take on groups of terrorists who believe that they have the right to take human life indiscriminately. However, to begin to deal with terrorism effectively, counter-terrorism requires us to address the conditions that terrorists exploit and—as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said—to tackle the phenomenon of failed states where terrorists can often find a fertile environment in which to prepare their attacks and to recruit support, be it active or passive.
	Typically, terrorists seek to exploit social and political grievances for their own purposes. I agree with much of what my noble friend Lord Judd said. Like him, I shall not mince my words about this. All too often those social and political grievances are real. In some cases, political exclusion and poverty may be direct factors which fuel the emergence of terrorism and are used by some terrorist groups to justify their actions and to recruit and draw support for their cause.
	The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in an excellent contribution, spoke about poverty. If some parts of the world continue to grow rich while others remain in abject and grinding poverty, it cannot surprise us if that creates and sustains grievances that become the fertile soil in which terrorism thrives. It is not that poverty leads directly to terrorism—that is not what the evidence shows us. It would be an insult to many poor and decent people to suggest that one leads directly to the other. Rather, poverty, social injustice and—above all—exclusion from hope of a better future are the potent ingredients used to justify terrorism. The truth is that they are real injustices and real grievances. There is, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, real oppression in the world. That is not to justify terrorism. However, we who have the means to do so need to address those issues. That means active, real effort to come to grips with the very conditions which, if left to fester, provide the environment in which the roots of terrorism grow and are nurtured.
	Well before the events of 11th September 2001, the UK was actively engaged in working to spread the benefits of increasing world prosperity to the least developed and developing countries of the world. We are doing so through aid, but also—arguably every bit as importantly—through trade. We have worked hard to spread respect for human rights and adherence to the rule of law and to promote democracy and good governance. We are at the forefront of international efforts to reduce poverty, working to cut debt, remove unfair trade barriers and tackle killer disease. Those are all issues on which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I would like to engage more not only with religious leaders in the House of Lords but also with religious leaders throughout the country and from all faiths.
	The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, in his very interesting contribution, reflected on what the definition of terrorism should be. I disagree with some of what he said but I agree strongly with him that terrorism has its roots in many causes and that we have to examine those causes very honestly. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, was right: we have to look at all those possible—what he described as underlying—reasons which may be camouflaged in the religious reasons with which terrorists seek to justify their actions.
	Let us acknowledge that regional conflicts fan the flames of terrorism. One of the regions where Her Majesty's Government have focused particular attention is on helping to defuse the tensions in the Middle East. In the Middle East we have seen an almost complete breakdown of trust between Israelis and Palestinians. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, it has been made worse by every suicide bombing, by every missile, by every young person killed in a discotheque and by every retaliation and house demolition. Most British citizens—Muslim and non-Muslim alike, those of the Jewish faith, those of us who are Christians, and those of no faith at all—hope that we can secure the peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.
	Earlier this afternoon we spoke of what happened yesterday and of the appointment of Mahmoud Abbas, who has now taken up the awesome responsibility of Prime Minister of Palestine. Yesterday's announcement from Hillsborough concerning the commitment of the United Kingdom and the United States not only to the publication but also to the implementation of the road map constitutes a real step forward. But of course I recognise that there is scepticism. Scepticism is born of bitter experience in this case. But I urge all your Lordships to support a move which I believe is the best chance for peace that has arisen in a very long time.
	I agree strongly with what the noble Lords, Lord Wright of Richmond and Lord Roberts of Conwy, said; namely, that the problems in the Middle East, for which religion is often cited as a justification, are a huge underlying cause seeking to justify terrorism. By tackling the Middle East problem we also tackle that terrorism.
	As many of your Lordships acknowledged, terrorist groups have long used religion to justify their crimes. My noble friend Lord Desai urged us to delink religion and terrorism. I wish that we could do so. But the linking of religion and terrorism is widespread, deep-seated and, as my noble friend said, it has become distorted and abused. It is not a new phenomenon and Islam is not the only religion to have been used in that way. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth said, what is new is the emergence of fundamentalism. He and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark were right to remind us that all religions have their fundamentalists. Some in secular life also espouse fundamentalist beliefs.
	The right reverend Prelate asked us to consider self-criticism. I believe that he was absolutely right to do so. But, if I may say so, I suspect that his wise words will not reach their target. I give the example of Osama bin Laden. He seeks to use Islamic texts and scriptures to legitimise his attacks: attacks that have targeted civilians on a massive scale and resulted in the deaths of many innocent people—Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
	As I said in this House on 16th December last year, Islam is a faith of peace. But, appallingly, as a result of atrocities such as those perpetrated by Al'Qaeda, for some, Islam and terrorism have become inextricably linked. That is tragic. My noble friend Lord Ahmed was right to remind us how wrong such a linkage is. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark was right to remind us that religion is often used as a cover for terrorism. A terrorist is a terrorist whatever his or her religion. Let us be clear that people like Osama bin Laden are responsible for this tainting of the Islamic faith.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that such actions and hatred—the sort of comments that we have heard in the racist rhetoric of Abu Hamza, and others who preach his dreadful message—are an anathema to the overwhelming majority of Muslims. The fact is that the majority of Muslims—indeed, the majority of all people—abhor any violence of that nature. But, sadly, many terrorist organisations describe themselves as Islamic, either in the titles that they give themselves or in the descriptions of their aims. In effect, they hijack the fine name of Islam for their own dreadful ends. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford made clear—my noble friend Lord Haskel was also right to remind us of this—it is not only Islam that unfairly attracts such distorted labels but also other religions, including Judaism.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Richardson of Calow, in her call for a strong coalition of faith was also right to remind us of what unites the great faiths of the world in the pursuit of good and the help that we can give each other in pursuing good against the evil that is so often perpetrated.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, raised the question of differentiating between political religion and spiritual religion. By political religion I understood the noble Lord to refer to those who seek to politicise their religion for a secular end. He described those who seek to create new, modern political structures informed by fundamental precepts of their religion. That is not peculiar to one religion either, as the noble Lord made very clear in his address. Fundamentalism of a blinkered nature in all religions of the world distorts lives and the relationships between those who espouse religious faiths. But we have to be careful here. Political religion may well be eccentric rather than damaging. In no way does it automatically equate to violence or terrorism. I considered that part of the noble Lord's analysis unnecessarily bleak.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford asked what could be done to support the mainstream rather than the extremes in faith. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and my noble friend Lord Janner of Braunstone that dialogue has to be the key to unlocking this problem. Religious leaders have a key role to play in developing greater understanding and mutual respect, particularly in those communities riven by violence and mistrust. Interfaith dialogue can, and does, promote real alternatives to violence. As the right reverend Prelate said, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in a fine speech, it can be a tremendous force for good in the world.
	In January 2002 the Alexandria Declaration brought three of the world's great religions together to work for peace in the Middle East. Here I must commend the personal commitment of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey of Clifton, to the Alexandria Declaration and the process that followed it. With the Alexandria Declaration, senior Muslim, Jewish and Christian leaders have committed themselves to work together to promote a peaceful settlement to the Israel/Palestinian conflict; to support calls for a cease-fire and an end to the violence; to oppose incitement, hatred and misrepresentation of others; to help create an atmosphere where present and future generations will live together in mutual respect and trust and to ensure followers of the three faiths respect the sanctity of the Holy Land, which is holy to us all.
	The Alexandria process has the wholehearted support of Her Majesty's Government. As many of your Lordships made clear, including particularly the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Hylton, the net goes far wider than the problems in the Middle East. I assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford that the Government are playing a full role in promoting interfaith dialogue at home and abroad and in particular helping to build links between communities in the United Kingdom and communities overseas. We are focusing on ways to encourage Muslims to speak out more in opposing the extremist minority or the violent fringe. We are associated with numerous groups and forums and are increasing our outreach to the Muslim community as a particular priority. Ministers regularly meet with leading representatives of the Islamic community in this country and with influential religious and community leaders overseas to discuss matters of concern.
	My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary recently visited South East Asia in the wake of the Bali bombing and spoke of the importance of promoting understanding between the West and the Islamic world. In Indonesia, which we discussed earlier this afternoon, and which a number of your Lordships visited last year, we have promoted interfaith dialogue. A delegation of UK Muslim councillors also visited that country to share their experiences. In addition, a number of UK visitors to Indonesia have undertaken speaking engagements with the influential moderate Muslim community. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for all her valuable work as regards Indonesia and the Sudan.
	We are reaching out through our parliamentarians to leaders in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Morocco and Tunisia. We have all remarked on the fact that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has been in the Gulf this week attending the interfaith conference hosted by the Emir of Qatar. That is another excellent example of the steps being undertaken by faith communities to build dialogue.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for reminding us about groups outside government in the established Church, which take their own initiatives to grow interfaith dialogue. I am grateful to him for his heartening description of what is happening in this respect in former Yugoslavia.
	Much work is being undertaken in the Foreign Office to develop closer relationships with the Muslim community at home and abroad. I shall single out a few instances. Since 2000, we have supported and funded Hajj delegations. I remember well the valuable help that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, gave me in trying to set up that initiative. It involves a partnership between government and the Muslim community and has also been led by the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Blackburn. This year's delegation, which included eight medical staff, helped about 10 per cent of 15,000 British pilgrims. The noble Lord can take much credit for having been part of the trigger that got that going. We have also been running successful Islamic awareness training courses for our staff.
	My noble friend Lord Ahmed spoke about what is happening in the United Kingdom. My honourable friend Mike O'Brien has planned a series of outreach visits to regional communities in the UK, and my noble friend Lord Filkin is undertaking a complementary programme as the Home Office Minister. I say gently to my noble friend Lord Judd that my noble friend Lord Filkin has worked assiduously on promoting that interfaith dialogue.
	I shall write further to those noble Lords who I know are interested in these matters about the other work being undertaken. We are planning a seminar on faith and foreign policy as part of a multifaith week at the FCO. Planning is in its early stages but I should be happy to talk to any noble Lord who wishes to be associated with that work about ways in which we are able to develop that in future.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, spoke about the current conflict in Iraq. One of the most frequently stated objections to the conflict is the claim that it will tend to fuel terrorism. I believe that there is an argument that the reverse is true. When one looks at the faces of the civilians in Basra, who are starting to believe that the time of oppression will soon be over, or at the faces of young soldiers who are surrendering to the coalition and who ask, "When will I be executed?" only to be given food, water and reassurance, one sees testaments to the fact that this conflict will not inflame terrorism but suffocate it.
	I listened carefully to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who urged us to look critically at ourselves. He was absolutely right; disconcertingly, he quite often is. We as individuals must look constantly at our own attitudes. One of the points in which I place most hope is that of the tolerance of young people. They share friendships between races, cultures and faiths, and most of us could learn a great deal from that. That is not because they are set aside from their own culture, faith or race, but because they live in a world in which living together day by day comes far more naturally than it did to many of us when we were young. They have grown up in a multifaith, multicultural society in this country—in a United Kingdom in which we seek to involve and encourage political, religious, cultural and ethnic diversity. With all of the shortcomings that are so obvious in our society today, that tolerance and acceptance makes me feel much more optimistic about the future.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comprehensive reply to this debate and to all noble Lords who took part, especially, if I may say so, those who spoke out of their own deep commitment to interfaith dialogue of one kind or another.
	It is a sad fact that so many Muslim societies and communities feel alienated in our world today, hostile to US power, disgusted by western lewdness, sometimes oppressed and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed said—he was referring to Muslim communities in this country, and particularly to young people—resentful and marginalised. They feel, as the Minister said, excluded from the hope of a better future.
	That, as we are all aware, is the breeding ground for terrorism. When those communities take religion seriously, as they do, when terrorists speak to that sense of alienation by offering an alternative better world that can come about only by destructive acts of violence, and when they can gain the allegiance of those alienated young people by a religious call to commitment to kill and be killed, we have a very serious situation indeed. Religion is being misused, as every noble Lord pointed out. However, we must face the sad, brutal fact that misused religion is a powerful destructive force. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, put it, it is a rage against the established order and a rage against corrupted states; it is a creed for the discontented.
	I am particularly grateful to those noble Lords who addressed this sense of exclusion and who are concerned to find ways of strengthening the moderate mainstream majority, thereby helping them to be valued, to know themselves to be valued and to be fully participating members of our society and the world as a whole. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Atlantic Salmon

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: rose to call attention to the plight of Atlantic salmon; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be given the opportunity to raise the plight of the Atlantic salmon. I feel that doing so on Budget day and on the day on which Baghdad appears to have fallen is rather like trying to fish for salmon on a cold winter's day with a floating line. However, I hope to cast a few flies in the direction of the Minister and gain the Government's support for action in this crucially important area.
	I begin by thanking publicly Mr Andrew Wallace, the director of the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, Mr Paul Knight, who is the director of the Salmon and Trout Association, and Fay Hieatt, from the River Tweed Commissioners. All of them have spent considerable time talking to me about some of the issues with which they are concerned. I also thank officials in the Scottish Executive and the Minister's office, who have been extremely helpful. I have given the Minister an indication of some of the matters that I want to raise.
	I also say "Thank you" to the noble Lord, Lord Nickson—of Renagour—who is battling at this very moment to get from Pitlochry, where the annual general meeting of the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, of which he is president, is taking place. He has been held up because Heathrow controllers are in short supply. I am sure that the whole House will be understanding of the fact that he is not here at the beginning of this debate; his contribution will be very welcome indeed.
	I am a recent convert to fishing. When I ceased being a member of the government, I found that fishing took up quite a lot of my time. I do not believe that there is a finer sight in nature than a leaping salmon. It is a fantastic sight—one of the grandest sights that one can see. Yet this extraordinary creature is in mortal peril. According to the World Wildlife Fund—or WWF, as it now calls itself—it has all but disappeared in Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and it is on the brink of extinction in Estonia, Portugal, Poland, the United States and parts of Canada. Indeed, 90 per cent of the world's population of Atlantic salmon are now concentrated in four countries: Iceland, Norway, Ireland and Scotland. Even in Scotland, according to WWF, it is endangered in 37 per cent of the rivers.
	I appreciate that most Members of the House who are taking part in this debate are even more expert in these matters than the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, and certainly more expert than me. But it is important to remember that these fish are genetically programmed to return to the river from whence they came—indeed, to the very spot in the river where the egg that produced them hatched—and that, once a wild population has gone from a river, it has probably gone for ever.
	I know that the Minister does not have responsibilities in Scotland, but I believe that what has happened on the west coast of Scotland should give us all considerable cause for concern. We have seen the salmon and sea trout populations completely collapse, and I do not believe there is now any doubt that fish farming has been a major contributor to that catastrophe.
	I once thought—indeed, it happened during my watch at the Scottish Office—that salmon farming would help to save the wild fish. I believed that it would bring down the price of salmon, that there would be less poaching and that it would be good news for the wild fish. That has sadly proved to be a delusion. Poorly managed farms have had a disastrous impact on the wild population. I am told that last year 400,000 fish escaped from fish farms into the wild, resulting in interbreeding, which damages the gene pool, and competition for food and scarce resources.
	The siting of cages at the mouth of rivers means that the smolts—the young fish—going out to sea are ruthlessly attacked by sea lice, which are in far heavier concentrations than would occur in nature because the fish in the cages are in very high concentrations. Indeed, a piece of research in Norway showed that in one river where cages of farmed fish were placed at the mouth, 80 per cent of the smolts were lost through sea lice attacks. The sea lice cluster on the heads of the young fish like death crowns and weaken and, ultimately, kill them.
	In fairness, the industry and the Scottish Executive recognise that there is a problem. Indeed, only in the past few weeks we have seen the publication of a report on agriculture. But, like so many others, it is yet another example of a report which is good on words and short on action. It talks about more research rather than what is needed—that is, tough controls to deal with fish farming and effective enforcement of proper codes of conduct.
	I know that the industry has come forward with a voluntary code of conduct, and I am the last to argue for regulation. But the trouble with voluntary codes of conduct is that the good guys obey them and the bad guys get on with farming in the bad old ways, which have caused so much damage to the environment. With regard to the escapes, I believe that at the very least farmed fish should be tagged so that we are aware of where they are going and what the consequences are. Many people have called for a public inquiry into the environmental impact of fish farming. I am bound to say that I have some sympathy with that view.
	I was fishing on the Tweed at the end of last year—which is why I decided to try to secure this debate in the House—when one of the best gillies on the Tweed, Colin Bell, told me that there were plans to set up a fish farm to rear 3 million to 4 million smolts on the Ettrick, which is within the Tweed's catchment area. I told him that he must be wrong: there was an understanding that there would be no more fish farms on the east or north coasts of Scotland. As with so many things said by gillies, he turned out to be absolutely right. There is, indeed, a proposal from a Norwegian company to turn a trout farm into a smolt farm. It would not be allowed to do that in Norway but in Scotland we do not have the necessary controls to prevent such a thing happening. Escapes into the Tweed would be absolutely disastrous, and the possibility of the spread of disease and parasites is most concerning.
	Salmon fishing is not only a pastime for a few rich people who go up to the Tweed; it is very much a way of life for the rural communities. In the Borders, salmon fishing employs 520 people and produces a local income of some £13 million. When the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, reported as part of the task force which I set up when Secretary of State, he estimated that the value to Scotland alone of salmon caught on the rod was some £350 million.
	Drift-netting has been a big issue in Scotland. I am delighted to see that my noble friend Lord Monro will speak later in the debate. During his watch, he was instrumental in persuading MAFF to phase out the north-east drift-nets, which are responsible for taking some 33,655 salmon. That was a great cause celebre in Scotland. I remember that John Gummer and other Ministers considered us to be very tiresome, but it was an important matter. To the credit of the Minister and Mr Elliot Morley, the phasing out of the north-east drift-net fishery has been accelerated. The Minister came forward with £0.75 million to help to buy out the netsmen, but I am told that agreement has now been reached on a figure of £3.34 million to buy out 80 per cent of the netsmen. That is fantastic progress. The sum of £3.34 million leaves something of a gap, but I understand that the Minister—again, to his credit—has increased his offer to £1.25 million and that the private sector is finding £1 million. Therefore, there is a gap of £1 million.
	I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who did so well when he was in the Scottish Office, thinks about this, but the Scottish Executive is refusing to pay a penny on the grounds that this is an English fishery. However, the Scots are the principal beneficiaries of fish travelling up Scottish rivers. Here is a chance to save 25,000 salmon every year which will go to the Tweed, the Dee, the Forth and the Tay, but the Scottish Executive cannot find the money. That is ridiculous. The documentation must be completed in May because the season starts in June, so the Members of the Executive had better wake up when they return from their electioneering.
	I note that during the debate in the Scottish Parliament, which was quite good, Rhona Brankin, the then Fisheries Minister, when asked about this matter, said:
	"We take the matter seriously and are in discussions with MAFF about it".
	She then said:
	"If the number of fish returning to our rivers continues to decline, there is a real danger that there will be too few spawning fish to ensure that the juvenile population is maintained at safe levels. I am afraid the picture is bleak".
	Quite so. The picture will be bleak if Ministers in a devolved Administration, which is supposed to help Scotland, allow this opportunity to slip away.
	If the Atlantic salmon has an epitaph, I believe that it will be "Lost at sea". Again, the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, estimated that the black hole into which the smolts are disappearing at sea is taking something in the region of a million more fish than it took 20 or 30 years ago; in other words, the survival rate of the smolts has fallen from 15 to 25 per cent to 5 to 15 per cent. I believe that the pelagic trawlers—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, is now in his place—are a major source of that loss of young salmon. Some estimates put the numbers as high as 900,000. These fish are being killed by people fishing for mackerel and herring in the northern North Sea and are then dumped over the side as bycatch discards. It is a huge waste of resources, and I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what action he is taking to change this ludicrous system.
	Similarly, I know that the subject of seals is controversial, but why cannot we have a seal commission, in the same way as we have a red deer commission, to deal with the trebling of the population which has occurred among the seals? Again, the task force of the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, estimated that seals catch 470,000 fish, and that is on a fairly conservative basis.
	I return to the subject of drift-netting. I praised the Minister for his actions on the north-east drift-net fishery. But I have to say that the answer that he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Mason, in February when asked what representations the Government were making to the Irish in respect of Irish drift-nets—the answer was "none"—was wholly unsatisfactory. That is the Irish drift-net fishery, which the drift-net fishermen themselves wish to give up. People are able to buy out of it although it costs a huge amount of money to administer. It takes at least a quarter of a million fish every year, which affects the rivers in Wales, in the south-west of England, as well as in Spain, France and Germany.
	The great hero of that sad tale is a man called Orri Vigfusson, an Icelandic vodka distiller, who has almost single-handedly set up the North Atlantic Salmon Fund, which has seen Greenland, the Faroes and Iceland all give up their netting. It is helping with the north-east case, but the Irish refuse even to consider a dialogue. I believe that the Government have a duty to take action. I hope that the Minister will give the House an undertaking that he will take action. Why should it be left to private interests in the south-west of England to argue with the EU Commission that the Irish are in breach of the habitats directive.
	Finally, I ask the Minister what has happened to the legislation on the Warren report. That was set up by Jack Cunningham—a keen and enthusiastic fisherman—when he was Secretary of State. It was a splendid report and its recommendations were accepted, but there is no DEFRA Bill in the current Session. We could have had a Bill to deal with this situation. Can we have a Bill in the next Session? I venture to suggest that these matters are far more important than cottaging and other matters that appear to have crept into the legislative programme.
	Your Lordships will realise that time is running out for me. But time is also running out for these magnificent creatures, the Atlantic salmon. Britain has a special responsibility. We are blessed with the population of Atlantic salmon. I do not know why anyone wants to be a Minister; it is jolly hard work. The noble Lord will know what hard work it is. But if you are a Minister you can make a difference. I say to the Minister that this is his chance; this is his opportunity to make a difference, to use his considerable energy and power and enthusiasm to act to ensure that this wonderful fish, this king of fish does not go the way of the panda, the Bengal tiger and the snow leopard. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on being fortunate in securing a two-and-a-half hour debate on this subject. As he will notice from the list of speakers, there is a wealth of knowledge and experience to follow. I feel that I am among a gang of Scots who know all about fly fishing, salmon fishing and the salmon itself, but I do not know much myself. I put down a marker that the signs indicate failing health. The noble Lord suggests it is more than that; that the salmon are in dire straits and in peril.
	First, I turn to the Scottish salmon fish farms. I assume that the Minister will understand the situation as his briefing note will have mentioned that the viral disease of infectious salmon anaemia has been cleared and that compensation has been paid to owners. I would like to know what the cost was financially, how many farms were closed and what was the loss to the fish stocks. The only reason I mention that is that I remember well the effects of the whirling disease and the stocks that were lost then.
	The overall picture of the Scottish fish farms is not a pleasing one. Research shows that farmed fish adversely affect wild salmon. There is interbreeding by escapees and there are diseased fish and parasites. Excrement can be found around and beneath the cages and genetically farmed fish are taking their toll on the wild salmon. Therefore, that is a continuing threat.
	How has the production of farmed salmon cut back the stocks of wild salmon? Is it likely, as some already suggest, in order to stop the spread of fish disease affecting the wild salmon in the coastal waters, that fish farms may have to move inland into contained, disease-free ponds? Maybe the experiments in farmed cod will lead the way in doing that.
	Another allied plight which is a threat to the wild salmon is escapees from the net pens. Research has shown that as much as 40 per cent of the Atlantic salmon caught by fishermen in areas of the North Atlantic Ocean are of farmed origin. I find that incredible. And that is not necessarily all from the Scottish farms.
	On a further question of saving the wild salmon, I draw attention, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, did, to the activities of Orri Vigfusson, who acts under the North Atlantic Salmon Fund. The fund is helping to buy out the netsmen and drift netters; it is negotiating and providing funds as well as there being funds from government sources. Therefore, I ask to what extent NASCO (the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation) and the Government are assisting him in his endeavours to make representations to the Irish Republic regarding their drift netting operations. I am led to believe that their netters took 237,000 salmon in one season, with well over 100,000 taken illegally, and with seals taking them in the nets. That is nearly a quarter of all the salmon caught in Europe. If that situation were bought out, there could be a genuine recovery of the wild Atlantic salmon.
	I turn my attention to the North Sea drift netting fishery. Salmon trawlers, trawling the North Sea, using very lengthy nylon filament gill nets—they are white and practically invisible—indiscriminately take thousands of salmon that are returning to their spawning grounds in the Yorkshire Esk and the Scottish salmon rivers. But, worryingly, they take marine mammals as well, such as porpoises and dolphins, and diving birds. When the gill nets break they become ghost net killers of all those species. Silently, unseen, they plunder the seas of marine and bird life and, unlike hemp nets, they continue to do so for years.
	Is the Minister aware that among the fishing nations of the Atlantic and in NASCO and its council we are constantly being embarrassed—only Ireland and probably Greenland still use gill nets. So diplomatically we are constantly in the dock. I ask why we allow that practice to continue, especially when one bears in mind those who want a ban: NASCO, the Salmon & Trout Association, all the conservation organisations and the fishing and tourism organisations in Scotland.
	As the Minister knows, I am aware of some progress in this matter. A slow, phased payout has begun, but I guess that there are still between 60 and 70 operators in the North Sea. To what extent has the Minister worked with the group associated with the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on this and noted Orri Vigfusson's views and his activities? Is it time that we brought the gill net practice to an end, spent a few more pounds, bought out the gill netters and ended the shame on our country in the council of NASCO?

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on drawing attention to the modern peril of the wild salmon as he described it. I have an interest in two River Dees. The Welsh Dee runs quite close to my home in Wales and I hope to be standing up to my neck in the Scottish Dee for the whole of next week, as I have for the past 25 years, carrying out my usual conservation fishing.
	It is interesting to compare the experiences of the two rivers. From the late 1960s, the Welsh River Dee went into gradual decline. Over the past 10 years, the River Wye in Wales collapsed, while the River Usk is doing quite well. No specific reason has ever been detected for the difference between the various Welsh rivers. There are no fish farms, for example, that affect those rivers. Having sat for many rainy days in the hut, various ideas have been put forward: the change of sheep dip, the agricultural run-off that kills off insect life and affects the young salmon and the young parr—all sorts of theories have been put forward. It is difficult to ascribe any particular reason for what has happened.
	However, the Welsh River Dee has recovered significantly. Indeed, 2002 was a good year. The salmon counted at Chester weir was 7,319, which may be a small figure for Scotland, but it is good for Wales and it is the second highest figure in 12 years. This spring was a very good run as well. As for sea trout, in 2001 they reached a record level of 18,500 fish.
	We have our own problems. Industrial pollution killed off a vast quantity of fish—over 100,000—in July 2000. Again last year there was industrial pollution in the Welsh Dee below the Maerdy Hatchery, although its impact was small. We still have estuary netting, which kills about 1,000 fish a year, although there is a marked decline in the licences that are now applied for. In the Welsh Dee, the rod catch last year was 470. That is about the 10-year average, although in the previous year it was over 600. Of those, 202 were returned to the river, which was 43 per cent of the catch.
	The Scottish Dee is undoubtedly the premier spring salmon fishing river, bar none. It is known world-wide. In the early 1990s, the River Dee fishery board in Scotland identified a rapid and significant decline in multi-winter salmon stocks and took energetic measures to halt it. It instituted a policy in 1995 of catch and release, which was highly unpopular. It banned spinning. However, since the introduction of that policy, no fewer than 16,000 salmon have been released to go on to breed. The present voluntary policy is for a 100 per cent catch and release. In fact, about 90 per cent of fish caught are returned. Last year that amounted to about 9,000 fish. The code confines spinning to the spring and forbids the sale of rod-caught salmon.
	As for netting, some three years ago the Dee board bought out the district's coastal fishing nets. Various hatcheries have been instituted in the spawning tributaries at Dinnet and elsewhere which augment the river's ability to produce smolt, with fry and parr planted out in the major middle and upper tributaries of the river. In addition, there is an intensive and urgent programme to improve in-stream and riparian habitats.
	The results are encouraging. If the work is put in, there can be results. Although the river is not what it was—and next week I am unlikely to catch anything whereas 25 years ago I would have expected five or 10 salmon between the three rods in the particular beat that I fish—things have improved over the past three years. I am told—I have to believe it next week—that things are looking good for the beginning of this year. So, with the necessary endeavour, salmon fishing can improve.
	I call your Lordships' attention to the importance of Europe. The Welsh European Funding Office announced in February that a total of £2.4 million had been awarded to the key Fishing Wales project by the European Union's Objective 1 European Rural Development Fund. That grant is of course matched by funds from partner organisations including the National Assembly government. It is designed to improve 178 kilometres of river, primarily the spawning tributaries. It will tackle erosion of river banks and vegetation loss caused by cattle grazing; the effects of conifer forests on water and habitat quality; and the construction of new fish passes which will open up 80 kilometres of suitable habitats for spawning fish. An element of that money is marked out for angling clubs and fishery owners to work in order to attract more angling visitors to Wales, which will of course generate much-needed revenue in local communities. The aim is to attract 1,000 new anglers to Wales in the coming years.
	Scotland does not have that advantage. The Scottish Executive has proposed to the European Union that the River Dee should be one of the candidates for designation as a special area of conservation. However, only the main stem of the Dee is so far covered by the proposed designation and it is to be hoped that there will be a further submission for the spawning tributaries where much of the conservation work takes place.
	The Dee is recognised as having particular importance for three species—the Atlantic salmon, freshwater pearl mussel and the otter—which depend upon the maintenance of high water and habitat quality and sympathetic management. The Commission will make a decision in the autumn or early next year. It should make some European money available in Scotland for salmon conservation. That is not as satisfactory as the position in Wales where matters are more advanced.
	Mortal peril indeed, but conservation requires hard thinking, detailed planning and constant work by dedicated people that is backed by sufficient funding. It is not just for the benefit of those of us who fish, but for the preservation of the treasures we are privileged to enjoy both in Wales and in Scotland.

Baroness Golding: My Lords, I, too, wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on obtaining this very important debate. I declare my interest as chairman of Second Chance, which is a fishing charity for children, as an executive member of Get Hooked on Fishing, as a member of the Salmon & Trout Association and as a committee member of the Atlantic Salmon Trust. In doing so, I pay tribute to the officers and members, past and present, who have done so much to promote the conservation and protection of wild salmon stocks.
	There were two significant acts of an incoming Labour Government with regard to the future of salmon. The first was the bringing together of the responsibility for the environment, agriculture and fisheries into one department—DEFRA—so that we now have only one set of Ministers to deal with. That is a great advantage.
	The second act was that of that avid fisherman, Dr Jack Cunningham, who immediately announced a review of fisheries legislation and set up the Warren committee under the chairmanship of Professor Lynda Warren. It produced the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review, which made 196 recommendations. I also need to declare an interest in that the report was dedicated to my late husband, John, who sat on the committee and who died before the report was published.
	I, therefore, have more reason than most to suggest to the Minister that the many hours of work put in by those on that committee should not be left on the shelf at DEFRA to gather dust, but that Parliament should find the time for a fisheries Bill to implement all its recommendations.
	I also wish to stress the importance of the need for a substantial United Kingdom contribution, both financial and in kind, towards NASCO—the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation—which is the international co-operative salmon research project investigating the reason for the increase in salmon mortality at sea.
	I am convinced that collaborative action involving both governments and the private sector is essential if salmon stocks are to thrive. The United Kingdom should be seen to be giving a strong lead in identifying potential research projects and in seeking the finance to attack this major problem.
	There is already strong evidence of the threat posed by near-surface pelagic trawlings in the Norwegian Sea. It has been estimated that 1 million smolt a year, as well as returning adults, are taken in buoyed-up trawls. The necessity to devise and enforce measures, such as the lowering of the head rope by as little as 10 metres on these trawlers, needs urgent government negotiation.
	Another issue for enforcement is the regulation of aqua culture. Although this is mainly a Scottish matter, the United Kingdom has an international responsibility following an agreement in NASCO under the Oslo resolution. The two most important aspects of this resolution are: first, integrated sea lice control by a combination of co-ordinated fallowing and treatment, which is aimed at reducing the number of egg-rearing lice to zero; and, secondly, the prevention of escapes in order to avoid inter-breeding.
	While raising a mainly Scottish issue, I, too, would like to know why the Scottish Parliament cannot see the sense of contributing to the buy-out of North East drift nets or, at the very least, underwriting some of the money that is desperately being raised to guarantee the second half of the buy-out. Can my noble friend shed some light on the thinking of the Scottish Parliament?
	I also add my voice to the threat from the parasite giro dactylus salaris—I wish that that was Welsh; I could manage that better—which has already devastated several Norwegian rivers. Although the import of wild salmoids is prohibited, we must urgently warn anyone who has fished abroad of the need to disinfect tackle and clothing before he returns. The parasite has already spread from Scandinavia through Europe to Spain. It can also be carried by some coarse fish; and there is an equal need for the import of coarse fish to be better controlled. Posters and information at all points of entry into this country would be a considerable help in warning everyone of that danger. Perhaps the Minister could ask that those points display such posters.
	Before I sit down, I pay tribute to the work being done by the rivers trusts to clean up and improve river flow and the environment of rivers such as the Tamar, the Wye and the Usk. That makes a valuable contribution to the life of our rivers. We who care about salmon owe them a great debt of gratitude.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Forsyth on obtaining this debate. It is a privilege to follow such distinguished fishermen as the noble Lords, Lord Mason and Lord Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Golding. I seem to have been involved in salmon and salmon legislation for much of my parliamentary life—some of which has been extremely frustrating.
	If we take as read—because time is short—the economic importance of salmon to the ecology, tourism, hotels, ghillies, river-watchers and other direct employment, we can move on to what can be done about it. It is important to recognise just how many jobs can be involved in helping to promote a river. In the current edition of The Field, I read that in the Kola peninsular in Russia, 75 people are employed in the fishing side of that development.
	Do the Government agree that that is important to the countryside? Why does it take so long for the Government to act? Can they not bring together some of their agencies? The Countryside Agency has just produced a report on the countryside that does not mention fishing or salmon. What about the Environment Agency, which is responsible for matters such as pollution? It does not seem to be taking much action. What about English Nature? They all seem to live in ivory towers; it is the Minister's job to bring them together.
	When I was a fisheries Minister—I advise no one else to take on that job if they can possibly avoid it—I was driven to despair by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as it then was, and its reluctance to resolve the North East drift net fishery. I am glad that we have made substantial progress, even if it has not been eliminated, as it was in Scotland more than 40 years ago. I believe—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, will put us right—that we are now down to 69 licences, which can be reduced to 17 if the £1 million can be found before the licences become current again on 1st June.
	Can the Government help further? I know that they have been helpful in providing money, but buying out the licences is a key issue and we need £1 million—bearing in mind that a huge amount of voluntary money has already been put in. I really cannot go on. I am driven mad in this House that whenever I mention Scotland, the Minister says that that has nothing to do with us. We are a United Kingdom. Ministers must take joint responsibility for things that matter to both countries. Salmon is a key issue. What is happening in England is ruining fishing in Scotland.
	Ministers must cease dodging the issue of where responsibility lies for the environment. I express enormous gratitude to Orri Vigfusson of the North Atlantic Salmon Fund, the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, who has done so much, my noble friend Lord Moran, who has given a tremendous lead in dealing with salmon legislation, and all the trusts and organisations supporting salmon, such as the Salmon and Trout Association, the Tweed Commissioners, who are doing a wonderful job, and the district salmon boards.
	Ten years ago, Orri Vigfusson negotiated the deal with the Faroes, Iceland and Greenland to remove the nets, but that 10 years is about to run out. Are the Government helping him to renegotiate those important agreements on salmon netting in the North Atlantic? DEFRA Ministers frequently talk about biodiversity, sustainability and other such jargon, yet the North East drift nets set a dreadful example to Ireland. The interceptory and drift nets are a real danger, as all noble Lords who have spoken have pointed out.
	The European Commission asked the Irish to cut their catch by 40 per cent. The Irish said, "Yes, of course we will", but did not; they cut it by only 7 per cent, which had little impact on the situation. It is most important that our Government—the United Kingdom Government—get on to the Irish to say, "Look here, we have really had enough of this drift netting. It sets a dreadful example for conservation. What are you going to do about it?" Is the Irish catch in breach of the water framework and habitat directives? I understand that the Wessex and Wales boards are to take Ireland to court over that. Are the Government helping them to prepare their case and giving them money to help them in the courts?
	We really must have some action. We cannot all sit on our fences and watch them crumbling underneath us; we must do something. That is why we are getting so depressed that we are on a plateau with so little happening.
	I turn to other things that could help salmon fishing. Scottish National Heritage and English Nature are notoriously reluctant to deal with predators. They throw up their hands in horror at the idea of licences to deal with herons, cormorants or mergansers. How many licences have been issued during the past season to deal with cormorants, mergansers and herons? All right, one can flap one's arms at herons on a pond, but one cannot deal with them up and down 50 miles of river.
	My noble friend rightly asked: what about seals? We must do something about seals. I know that it is a difficult question for Ministers but, after all, they have got hold of the poor old hedgehog and do not mind having them cleared out of North and South Uist—to the horror of many. Sometimes, it is right to put nature in the right direction. Seals have become an immense problem for salmon fishing.
	Are the Government, through the Environment Agency, addressing the important issue of pollution—the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, mentioned disinfecting tackle and so on when one moves from one river to another. We must stop disease passing from one river to another.
	Lastly, I mention fish farms, which have already been mentioned. I know that they want to set a high standard and produce the finest quality salmon in Scotland. Good luck to them, including my noble friend Lord Lindsay and his team in Perth. But they must bear in mind the problems caused by the escape of salmon from the nets and the pollution that occurs underneath the nets, which are important.
	Those are some points for the Minister to think about. I hope that he will not escape by saying that he has not got his kilt on tonight, because it is important that UK legislation on salmon farming is UK-wide, not just for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland separately. I am glad that we are having this debate, and I hope that we will have some action after it.

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Salmon and Trout Association. Like others, I am a rod-and-line angler, which I regard as probably the least effective form of hunting and catching salmon, at least in my personal experience, and therefore paradoxically the most effective conservation instrument short of total prohibition on all forms of catching salmon.
	We recognise the problem. I pay tribute to a seminal study of that problem, which was internationally recognised as such, in the two reports of the committee chaired by Lord Hunter, dated 1963 and 1965 respectively, on the Scottish salmon and trout fisheries. I have had the privilege of fishing in Lord Hunter's company over many years. Very recently, just before this debate and in preparation for it, I went down to have a conversation with him. He is a still hale and hearty 90 year-old. He remains in constant touch with what is going on in the fisheries world, including contact with Orri Vigfusson. He pays great tribute to what Orri has achieved for salmon fishing throughout the world.
	The earlier report was concerned with the problem arising from the then recent development of drift-net fishing for salmon in waters off Scotland and the Tweed. In September 1962, the Scottish Office, in advance of a review by the Hunter committee and pending its advice, introduced an interim prohibition against the use of the method and the landing of salmon so taken. It was subsequently confirmed following the issue of the first interim report in 1963. One of the conclusions was as follows:
	"Drift-net fishing has introduced a serious risk of overfishing and has the added disadvantage that a permanent drift-net fishery would frustrate or prevent the scientific management of individual salmon rivers and their most economic exploitation".
	Those are wise words.
	I add in parentheses that one might say that the Scots do not need to pay some tribute such as a Danegeld for the removal of the English drift-net fisheries; they have already taken their own steps by using orders under the sea fishing legislation to prevent fishing of that character off Scotland. That was done 40 years ago. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that it could be said that the Scottish Executive, acting in the interests of the United Kingdom, might make a contribution.
	The need for a holistic approach to the problem is underlined in the first chapter of the first interim report. It states:
	"The problem of the Scottish salmon fisheries cannot be understood without knowledge of the life history of the Atlantic salmon".
	Later, it adds:
	"As salmon spend part of their life in fresh water and part in the sea, no one interested in one part can afford to disregard the other".
	At the end of the day, in the second report, the committee said:
	"The homing of salmon and sea trout is an established fact and is the key to the proper management of salmon and sea trout fisheries".
	We have advanced in scientific knowledge since then. Enough is now known, I suggest, to recognise that all interests, national and international, should come together to produce a permanent solution that encompasses protection throughout the life cycle of the species. But the United Kingdom—I stress, the United Kingdom—must put its house in order first while seeking to be part of the co-operative international effort to secure prohibition of commercial exploitation that involves interception of mixed stock at sea, particularly through by-catch, as has already been said. It should also work towards the removal of the remaining fixed engines for fair compensation and the discontinuance of drift-net fishing of salmon, again for fair compensation, in favour of an in-river management system.
	The United Kingdom approach should proceed on a clear and consistent principled philosophy underlining its policy to the problem of trying to at least arrest the decline of the species. A change of approach to the problem requires the adoption of that in legislation, administration and management throughout the United Kingdom, recognising the general economic benefits of a well-managed system for salmon fishing for the United Kingdom and elsewhere generally. The development of that natural resource should aim at improving fisheries and providing a system of management that will replace unknowns with measured quantities, whereby salmon fisheries are moved away from hunting in the direction of farming. The methods of controlling the fisheries to be adopted should be capable of more than merely maintaining the spawning stock. They should secure not merely sufficiency but abundance. After all, nature provides a safety net by gross over-insurance. That should be recognised and sought.
	Much has been said about what has already been done. A joint effort by the United Kingdom and others is needed to secure the return of this fine species to all the rivers from which it has been lost and to ensure that, in rivers where it remains, the species is improved to the point where it can be good both for commercial purposes and for the angler.

Lord Sewel: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on securing this debate. He has almost succeeded in taking us back to pre-devolution days in that the subject is of obvious and particular interest to Scots and to Scotland. But the subject can be tackled only on a UK basis if it is to be tackled effectively, which is why, quite rightly, we are debating it in this House. Without disrespect to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, many noble Lords, when they approach the topic, have fond memories of the contribution made from the Opposition Front Bench on this issue by the late Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
	When I had some responsibility for this policy area, I believed that the general debate was not helped by the vehemence of those who sought to identify a single villain. That temptation has been avoided this evening. It has been generally recognised that the issue is much more complex and complicated than trying to pin the blame on one particular activity or group of individuals. The culprits are well known. The main sinners have been rehearsed this evening—the predators, piscivorous birds and seals. Many of us have reached the stage of believing that the case for more active management of the seal population needs to be at least reviewed in the near future.
	It has not been mentioned that, on the other hand, we have the case of the impact of commercial sand eel fisheries on stocks. I have some doubt about its effect. If it had an effect, it would occur much more on the east coast of Scotland than the west coast. The view is held very strongly in some branches of the Scottish judiciary that that is the only possible explanation.
	There has been a general decline in drift netting, as has been pointed out. One of my great regrets was that we were not able to build faster on the work of the noble Lord, Lord Monro, and finally to resolve the issue of the North East drift-net fishery. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, and my noble friend made the point that an opportunity existed to resolve the issue once and for all. It would be a tragedy if that opportunity were allowed to slip. I recognise the inhibitions that the Minister has, but I hope that he will be able to convey to colleagues in the Scottish Executive the strength of feeling in the House on the issue.
	One of the newer points that have emerged with increasing power is the impact of the by-catch. It deserves immediate action. The scale of the effect of the by-catch on stocks is now accepted. It can have a devastating effect on the population.
	I must return—in the sense that it was years ago—to fish farming and, in particular, the effect of sea-lice infestation. It is undoubtedly the case that some fish farms are located in areas in which, with hindsight and the benefit of the knowledge that we now have, we would not have wished to see them located. I also recognise the work done by the industry, particularly under the encouragement of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, to clean up its act. There has been progress. There is an external concern that the dumping of fish—particularly the dumping of Norwegian-farmed fish—will have an impact on our industry. The cost-drivers faced by the industry will be so severe that it may not be able to carry forward the improvements that have been started. It is a great shame that our European colleagues have not been able to stand up to that problem with any degree of robustness.
	The presence of fish farming—I accept that that is a significant issue—does not help us to understand the difficulties faced by the east coast rivers from time to time. I say that because it is a complex interplay of factors that will enable us to understand the plight of the Atlantic salmon. We should, as I said, resist the temptation to pin responsibility on one villain.
	If we are looking for a universal explanation—not a sole explanation—of the situation, we should consider the effects of global warming, the change in sea temperatures and the consequential effect on the food chain. I believe that, in the longer term, such things will have, perhaps, the most devastating effect. Alas and alack, not even the Minister can deal with that satisfactorily.
	I have no interest to declare. I am not a fisherman. However, I consider that this is one of the most interesting and, perhaps, troublesome issues to get one's head around. It is important, and I trust that the Government will advance on a broad front, rather than focusing on a particular issue.

The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean on securing the debate. I declare an interest as an enthusiastic fly fisher, mainly in pursuit—largely unsuccessfully—of salmon and sea trout, and as a keen tier of flies. Only my bank manager knows how much I have spent on my passion in the past few years, but my wife, unfortunately, knows well how few fish have succumbed to my piscatorial skills. She constantly reminds me exactly how much each fish has cost. I am also a member of the Salmon and Trout Association and of the Game Conservancy Trust.
	Many noble Lords will have greater knowledge of the subject than I, but I welcome the opportunity to give a few of my views on the subject of salmon, in general, and fishing, in particular. The debate provides a wonderful opportunity to speak about a sport followed by many. I am sad that my late noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish is no longer with us, for he would have provided us tonight with the benefit of his wide and expert views and his experience of the subject. He was an expert fly fisherman who delivered a range of casts that were poetry in motion. I know that he caught many fish and released most of them.
	I have been fishing for 30 years. In that short time, I have witnessed a substantial decline in the salmon and sea trout species in the rivers that I fish in. So many experts have so many theories about the causes of the demise in fish populations, but I suspect that there are three root causes, with many lesser factors contributing. First, there is overfishing on the high seas and in coastal waters for sand eels. My experience is mainly of the east coast of Scotland, but I understand that that is not so much of a problem on the west coast. Secondly, there is poor management and control of the watersheds supplying rivers. Thirdly, there is the pollution of watercourses. Seals are a huge problem on the east coast.
	Much is being done to rectify the mistakes of the past, but I have a horrid feeling that too little is being done too late. It is a constant struggle to raise funds to finance improvements to catchment and rivers, and I applaud those who strive so hard to achieve long-term solutions for our salmon and sea trout fisheries. In particular, I applaud the work done by Orri Vigfusson.
	My experience is mainly of the River Deveron in north-east Scotland. Once the top-rated sea trout river in Scotland, it was described in a poem by Martin Wood as,
	"the river of rivers, the weaver of dreams".
	It was where, on 21st October, 1924, Mrs Morison caught on a fly and landed her giant fish of 61 pounds, with a length of 52 inches and a girth of 32 inches—it makes one's mouth water—in a pool known as the Lower Wood of Shaws. I have fished that pool, and I never came away with anything. That intrepid fisher would be shocked beyond belief today to learn that the Deveron had suffered a massive decline in its fish population, notwithstanding the fact that the nets in the estuary were bought out some years ago. Last year and again this year, my riparian landlord, a former chairman of the Deveron River District Salmon Fishery Board, gave his tenants instructions that all sea trout were to be returned, unless damaged, and asked them to make every effort not to fish for that species because they existed in that river in such tiny numbers.
	Wherever I fish these days, catch-and-release is practised—rightly so—with an occasional silver cock fish being taken. But, sadly, there are still those greedy fishers who kill every fish of all colours, and they must be stopped. I am certain that catch-and-release is a major part of the way forward.
	I am a fly fisher primarily, and I loathe spinning. Although it is obvious that I am biased, I firmly believe that spinning for salmon and sea trout should be disallowed on all rivers, unless waters are at exceptionally high levels. But tell that to the hordes of fishermen on the River Moy in Ireland and one would likely face a lynch mob.
	Many boards are taking positive action to enhance and improve their rivers and catchment areas. The River Deveron board, chaired by Robert Shields, has set up a charitable trust, and its work includes, among several projects, the improvement of the redds; stabilisation of banks; improvements to weirs, passes and fish ladders and to silt water running off from close-lying fields. It also has plans to establish a hatchery, but all that costs large sums of money. Such projects should be grant-assisted by government—by the Scottish Executive, in Scotland—especially as they ultimately benefit from the improvements to the local economy of such usually less favoured areas. The improvements that are achieved do not just benefit the local economy; they benefit the wider regional environment. North of the Border, it is vital that the Scottish Executive support the fishing sport industry. They have much to gain in tourism alone. Measures such as the Land Reform Bill did not help.
	I am passionate about salmon fishing and about the rivers and the environment where I pursue my sport. I am passionate about the wildlife that those areas support. It is their habitat. We must not allow further decline, and we must support improvement, so that our children can enjoy that legacy.

Lord Moran: My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, for giving us the first opportunity for some time to discuss salmon problems.
	I should declare my interests. I am chairman of the Moran committee, which met this morning. It represents the principal fishery and angling organisations in England and Wales and puts points on which we all agree to the Government and the Environment Agency. I am an executive vice-president of the Salmon and Trout Association and president of the Welsh Salmon and Trout Anglers' Association. I have a small fishery in Wales, on the upper Wye, and, like the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, I am a fly fisherman and a fly tier. I should add that I have been pursuing the conservation of salmon in this House, and outside, for close on 20 years. It was, I think, some 16 years ago that my noble and learned friend Lord Cameron dealt deftly and courteously with our amendments to the Salmon Bill.
	I want to make, in a very summary way, five points. First, I turn to legislation. Dr Jack Cunningham set up the Review of Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries under the chairmanship of Professor Lynda Warren. Its valuable report was published three years ago, and the response of the Government came two years ago. Good progress has been made on the many recommendations which did not require legislation. But now we need urgently a Bill dealing with those matters that do need primary legislation.
	The Moran committee was dismayed to learn that there might not be room for such a Bill in the next Session, when four years will have elapsed since the report came out. The Bill is unlikely to be controversial and its introduction, by the Government that set up the review in 1988, would be widely welcomed.
	On 11th March, I wrote to Elliot Morley supporting Professor Warren in calling for an early Bill. Mr Morley replied on 26th March saying that the Government remained fully committed to this sector and that DEFRA would continue to press for a suitable slot. I hope that one will be found soon and I should be glad to hear from the Minister about this.
	One important point which needs to be included in this legislation is Recommendation 110 of the Warren report which stated:
	"No compensation should be paid to owners or occupiers of fisheries, or other interested parties, for the effects of measures adopted for conservation purposes",
	and that consequently,
	"Section 212 of the Water Resources Act 1991 should be repealed".
	The case is set out in the report on page 105, paragraph 10.9. Until that section of the Water Resources Act is repealed, the Environment Agency hesitates to bring in some much needed conservation measures because of its likely liability to compensation claims.
	Secondly, I turn to Irish drift-nets, but the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and a number of other noble Lords, have put the case fully. Can the Minister confirm that this fishery is seriously hampering the regeneration of so many of our salmon runs and tell us what the Government have said to the Irish authorities about it? Now that good progress is being made, with the help of the Government, to reduce substantially the catch of our own drift-nets off north east England, we are in a stronger position to press them to reduce their interceptory fishery. This we should do.
	My third point is about the Environment Agency and fisheries. The agency has an excellent fisheries department and a good number of admirable fisheries' scientists. Their work on salmon is valuable, although they tend to concentrate a little too much on purely restrictive measures and not enough on habitat restoration.
	The agency does, however, seem dedicated to promoting boating and canoeing and to getting more people onto the rivers with scant regard to its duty to maintain, improve and develop fisheries. The navigation and fisheries departments seem to have little to do with each other. There is a real need for the agency not to overlook its fisheries responsibilities, as the Warren committee said, and to ensure that an integrated approach to these matters is followed. I have tried hard to impress this on the agency but it seems curiously reluctant to deal with this in an even-handed way.
	My fourth point is about transgenic salmon. I corresponded with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about this last year and he sent me some useful and comprehensive letters, for which I was, and am, grateful.
	The potential risk is enormous. By injecting into salmon eggs a copy gene from the ocean pout, which is a growth promoter, salmon can be made to continue to grow in the winter as well as in the summer, 400 to 600 per cent faster than normal fish so that marketable salmon can be produced in 12 to 18 months. NASCO produced guidelines for action in 1997, stating that the parties—including the United States—should,
	"take all possible actions to ensure that the use of transgenic salmon, in any part of the NASCO convention area, is confined to secure, self-contained, land-based facilities".
	It is therefore strange and worrying that the United States authorities are giving careful thought to an application from an American company—A/F Protein—which is not confined to such facilities. If these monster salmon are raised in sea cages some will inevitably escape. Once in the environment they cannot be recalled. The action is irreversible. We simply do not know what the consequences would be. They might well be disastrous.
	The Government have told us that sterilisation is not 100 per cent effective. It is therefore not the answer. Consequently, I am glad that I was able to persuade the Government to inquire from the United States authorities last year how matters stood. I should like to know from the Minister what the situation is now.
	My fifth and final point is about the Severn Barrage. The Government's recent energy White Paper foreshadowed a vast increase in the production of renewable energy. It seems, therefore, possible that the Severn Barrage project might be revived. I pointed out some of the dangers 15 years ago—Hansard, 30th November 1987 at col. 804. The plan for pumping would mean that a yard long fish, swimming frantically against a current sucking them through the turbines, would inevitably be cut to pieces, while smolts passing through turbines would lose many of their scales and would have poor prospects for survival. I fear that the barrage might well spell the end of migratory fish in the Severn, the Wye and the Usk. That would be a tragedy.
	I think that all this matters a great deal—economically and environmentally. We have the good fortune to have in Great Britain this great fish which still runs in many of our rivers, although in diminished numbers. We must seek to ensure that in the country in which our children and grandchildren will live, salmon will still run up our rivers.

Lord Kimball: My Lords, it is most appropriate that my noble friend Lord Forsyth should have introduced this debate in the 100th year of the Salmon and Trout Association, of which I and many others are members. In its annual report, I particularly liked the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, in which he stated that it was,
	"educating thousands of youngsters in the art and sport of flyfishing".
	I also liked what the chief executive of the Countryside Alliance said:
	"A beacon of stability and normality in a troubled world".
	However, the issue that I am most worried about in the annual report of the Salmon and Trout Association is a reference in the director's report that,
	"There are serious concerns over the legal precedents being set for other field sports. Angling does not measure up to the utility argument".
	I should like to make just three points. First, I turn to the issue of illegal poaching around our coast. Whatever the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron, may have said, it still goes on to an enormous amount. I would also like to include sand-eels, seals and sawbill ducks.
	As long ago as 1935, the returning salmon and grilse from Iceland were mapped out. The fish would come around our Scottish coasts and make their way down to Northumberland and Yorkshire, where they would fall to the drift nets. The choice of any fish is always the river of its birth, but if that river is too low, they will continue on down the coast in concentric circles until they hit the Tyne and the Tees, turn around and come back again. That knowledge is shared by the nets men, who during the weekly close time from their legal netting do not waste their time.
	For 15 years, I was chairman of the Naver and District Fishery Board. We put our bailiffs to sea. For the first year we picked up nine miles of illegal net between Loch Eriboll and the Caithness boundary. Wherever there is a mixture of salt water diluted by fresh water, the salmon come up to the surface. In many cases, they cannot possibly run those rivers. But the effect is that they come up to the surface and with a drift net of only three feet, every lobster pot marker can be used to put down an illegal drift net.
	I am sorry to say that very few bailiffs will go to sea today, and that is most important. It is no good sending for the fishery cruiser because everyone knows when it is coming. Periodically, we used to telephone Aberdeen and people came up in a rubber dinghy. They would go around and pick up some of the nets. But the bailiffs are necessary if this is to be controlled.
	On the issue of sand-eels, it is incredible that we allow the Danes to take all the sand-eels around our coast in order to fuel their power stations. A smolt going out to sea needs an adequate supply of sand-eels to provide it with sufficient food in order to reach the plankton off Greenland, where it will grow and return as a salmon or a grilse.
	My noble friend Lord Monro mentioned seals. The seal population is growing at a rate of 9 per cent per year. They are counted by using a helicopter, so a great many seals dive and are not properly counted. We had been able to prevent new breeding colonies of seals being established on the north coast by using our estuary nets, thus allowing us to kill them. However, I am afraid that the estuary nets are no longer working, so we have no method of destroying the seals, which are now establishing new breeding colonies. I remember being told, "The fish are in the bay, so the season is about to begin". I do not believe that it was because the fish had arrived in the bay; it was the seals following the fish because they knew that the fish were coming.
	My noble friend Lord Monro also mentioned the problems posed by sawbill ducks. They are a great menace to parr. You can obtain a licence to kill them but the licence is valid only for the months of April and May. Later in the year, once the birds have hatched, is when the real harm is done. You want to be able to do in the sawbill ducks throughout the year.
	Unfortunately, cormorants are totally protected. I should like to see, quite simply, a no-fly zone established for all cormorants. The cormorant is in fact a sea-nesting bird. For that reason, I should like a no-fly zone set up for all cormorants above the high-water mark.
	My noble friend has done the House a great service in initiating this debate. I hope that we shall be able to look forward to another 100 years of the Salmon and Trout Association.

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for raising this very important matter in the House. At the same time, I think it is appropriate to stress what an enormous economic asset a salmon river in which salmon are still running can be to the neighbourhood, whether that be in Scotland, in England or in Wales. The spin-off from such a river in the form of local employment, hotel occupancy and so forth is a matter of considerable importance to rural economies. I say no more on this matter other than to refer to what was found by Lord Hunter in his 1962 report, which stated to the effect that every rod-caught fish was worth around 10 times as much as a net-caught fish to the general economy.
	Lest there be any doubt about it, I should also like to stress that salmon fishing is not a sport only for the toffs, as I think it is sometimes perceived. Many opportunities are available for people of small means to fish for salmon, certainly in Scotland. I happen to be fortunate enough to be a member of two local angling clubs which between them fish on some 10 to 12 miles of the river Erne. Friends whom I meet on that river come from all walks of life. A shop assistant in an ironmonger's is the secretary of one of the clubs, while a retired builder's labourer is another member. The clubs are widely representative.
	Perhaps I may mention a matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth; namely, the problems associated with fish farms. Last week I had the advantage of attending a meeting with Mr Jeremy Reid, the executive director of the North Atlantic Salmon Trust. I gather that there is hope that, through the use of in-feed medicine coupled with an occasional bath and fallowing, the problem of sea lice infestations in salmon farms can be brought to an end. Of course that is not to say that all the problems of disease and pollution will be solved, but it appears that there is a chance that one adverse aspect of salmon farming can be addressed and the problem terminated.
	I was going to make a few remarks about drift-nets, but much has already been said on that subject. I wish only to remind the House that, until the 1960s, drift-netting for salmon was virtually unknown, the reason being that the only nets which could be used for drift-net fishing were made of rope. They were too thick, so the salmon saw them and avoided them. Only with the advent of monofilament netting, which is more or less invisible to salmon and of enormous length, could drift net salmon fishing be undertaken to any great extent.
	I commend the action of the Minister, Mr Elliot Morley, in generously making available funds for the buy-out of the north-eastern nets, which it is estimated take some 80 per cent of the salmon going to Scotland. As regards the Irish nets, I too endorse what has been said: could not the Government put pressure on the Irish Government to restrict further the use of those nets? Or, better still, could they not encourage them to become involved in a buy-out? There can be no doubt that these nets, as interceptory nets, are robbing—I use the word advisedly—other rivers. After all, an interceptory net which takes fish indiscriminately can be regarded very much like a farmer who removes the oat crop from his neighbour's field, having done nothing to cultivate or maintain it.
	Finally I turn to the question of seals. I have made a few calculations on this. In his report, the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, estimated that in 1995 the grey seal population stood at 105,800. Seals eat between four and 11 kilograms of fish per day. If one applies the lower estimated increase of 6 per cent by 2003—the noble Lord referred to a "substantial" increase—in the seal population, each animal eating some 14 pounds of fish a day, or 2.28 tonnes per year, making a total of 320,000 tonnes of fish a year, then that amounts to a great many fish. Of course the seals do not take only salmon; indeed, salmon may constitute only a small part of their diet, but by any view the seal population makes an enormous inroad into inshore whitefish stocks. That is particularly unfortunate when we consider the problems being encountered on the north-east coast of Scotland. Boats are being decommissioned or laid up for lack of fish, yet the seals multiply and thrive.
	Under the terms of the 1970 Act, seals can be culled other than in the close time. A licence can be granted outside the close time,
	"for the prevention of damage to fisheries".
	If the seal population is to be allowed to continue to increase and eat without inhibition, we may reach a stage where the sea around the north-east coast of Scotland becomes simply a breeding and feeding ground for seals, until such time as they die of starvation or disease. I strongly urge the Government to press for some form of reduction in the seal population and to urge their colleagues in the Scottish Executive to do likewise.

The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Forsyth for introducing the debate. I declare two interests. I am a fly fisherman and, more importantly, I am the chairman of Scottish Quality Salmon, a membership scheme to which two-thirds of the Scottish farmed salmon industry belong. It is not a trade association in the normal sense of the word. It is a quality scheme exclusive to companies which opt to be independently inspected and certified to standards that exceed legal requirements. The standards cover product quality, environmental management, fish husbandry and best practice.
	My noble friend Lord Forsyth and others have set out the facts and figures, which speak for themselves. What has not been stressed is that the facts and figures go back many decades from the end of the Second World War. Throughout the 1950s and the 1960s, the extreme trends currently being experienced were already significant and detectable.
	As my noble friend pointed out, the problem occurs throughout the wild salmon range, from the US eastern seaboard up to Canada and around to Iceland, and from the Spanish coast up past the UK, Ireland and Norway and into the Russian rivers. Given the historic length and the geographic breadth of the problem, it is hardly surprising that a wide number of factors have been identified as being of possible significance.
	A member of one of the wild fish trusts has worked out that some 27 possible factors could account for the current trend. My noble friend Lord Forsyth referred to four and other noble Lords have mentioned a few more. A considerable number of factors need to be taken into account. I join with the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Sewel, in recognising that there is a complex, multifactorial problem. Anyone seeking a single villain is doing the wild salmon an injustice because many issues need to be taken into account.
	Salmon agriculture, with which I am involved in terms of standards, has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords and has attracted a considerable amount of attention in recent years. I should re-emphasise that the decades prior to the introduction of salmon farming into Scotland saw the initiation of the decline we are currently experiencing. I was interested to see in the press recently that in 1970 the Prince of Wales was writing to the Prime Minister and Ministers to complain about the decline in the numbers of wild salmon and sea trout in the 1950s and the 1960s. So concerns similar to the ones that we have today were raised 30 or 40 years ago.
	The geography of salmon farming perhaps puts the industry in a better perspective. As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, there are serious declines in areas where there are no fish farms and, interestingly, there is some encouraging recovery in areas where there are fish farms. So the complexity of the issue is undoubted.
	Whatever the interrelationship between salmon agriculture and wild salmon, Scottish Quality Salmon decided that it would commit to systems that avoided the doubt about salmon agriculture that had been created. That commitment has been absolute and complete. It is also unique. A system has been adopted that is unprecedented elsewhere in Scottish agriculture, European agriculture or global agriculture.
	The roots of Scottish Quality Salmon's commitment to the environment are to be found in its mandatory code of practice, which covers some of the issues critical to the survival of the wild Atlantic salmon. In addition to its codes of practice and statutory constraints, it has imposed on itself an absolute prohibition on any kind of genetic modification, either in terms of the fish or the fish feed. The noble Lord, Lord Mason, and other noble Lords expressed their fear in this regard. Scottish Quality Salmon is determined that it will never play a part in the Scottish industry.
	The most dramatic development has been the introduction of ISO 14001 accredited environmental management systems. These involve imposing probably the most comprehensive and rigorous environmental responsibilities. They are independently inspected and monitored; they are compliant with international standards and criteria; and the entirety of the regime is properly and independently accredited. They have enabled a considerable amount of progress to be made in addressing the issues raised by noble Lords.
	It has also enabled us to achieve for the first time, with some consistency, the prospect of zero ovigerous lice in fish farms. A number of noble Lords have raised concerns about lice. Like the noble Lord, Lord Moran, I can confirm that under the new regime that we have introduced, with access to proper treatment lice will soon be properly and completely under control. We shall apply the same discipline to achieve full containment, with escapes down to zero in the same way that we want to get lice down to zero.
	This underpins the success of the tripartite initiative in Scotland, which has involved wild fish interests, the Scottish Executive and Scottish Quality Salmon, in creating area management agreements between wild fish and farm fish interests at a loch level in order that issues of common interest can be jointly managed.
	Scottish Quality Salmon's second mandatory commitment is to assist local wild fish interests in their endeavours. I have today contacted one of our members, Marine Harvest Scotland, to inquire what it has done in the past two years to assist wild fish interests. Of the many schemes it mentioned, I shall refer to four. It has donated 40,000 to 50,000 sea trout smolts to the Loch Maree system; it has helped a number of fisheries boards and local angling groups to set up their own hatcheries, providing equipment, training and assistance; it has re-stocked the River Eilt system from Loch Ailort stocks; and it has currently about 250,000 sea trout fry, properly sourced so that they can be donated back into the river systems. Such work is vital. As my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury said, such restocking involves huge costs and there is a great willingness to help.
	I echo the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, in flagging up climate change. Anyone who has visited the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen will realise the enormity of the impact of changing sea temperatures in mid-Atlantic. I do not have time to quote the American data on this issue, but there are equally dramatic findings in relation to the Pacific salmon. There has been a two degree centigrade change in temperature in the middle of the Pacific.
	I support those who believe that by-catch is one of the vital areas where more necessary endeavour, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is needed. Not only have perhaps nearly one in four post-smolts from all western European rivers been taken by the North Norwegian fishery, but recent statistics from Iceland show that some 200 one-and-a-half kilos to two kilos salmon will be taken for every 800 tonnes of herring caught off Iceland. These are very serious statistics.

Lord Nickson: My Lords, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, on this debate, I should like to apologise to your Lordships for not being here to hear his opening words and to declare the reason for it as well as my interests. I am president of the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards. I was conducting its annual general meeting in Pitlochry this morning and my plane, unfortunately, was half-an-hour late. I was also chairman of the Atlantic Salmon Trust and the North Atlantic Salmon Fund (UK), and am chairman of the Conon District Fishery Board.
	I have been thrilled by this debate. Hardly a word has been spoken with which I would disagree. Many noble Lords who have spoken today spoke also in the last debate, which the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will remember very well, on 30th July 1997—I had a debate following the task force which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has set up. Since then, your Lordships have not had another opportunity to debate it, and much has happened in those six years. But, as has often been said, the decline in Atlantic salmon and sea trout has generally continued.
	I want to concentrate on one issue, which has already been mentioned—the current buy-out of the north-east drift nets. Along with my noble friend Lord Moran, I must have seen every Minister of Agriculture, from the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester, to the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave of North Hill. All Ministers at those meetings had three things in common: they were extremely courteous; they were extremely sympathetic to what we said; and they did absolutely nothing about it. Therefore, I congratulate my successors in the Atlantic Salmon Trust and the North Atlantic Salmon Fund (UK) who, following the Warren report, have been much more successful in persuading this Government to do something which their predecessors did not and put up some money to help the buy-out of the drift nets.
	We listened to three people speaking in Pitlochry this morning. Andrew Whitehead, the director of the North Atlantic Salmon Fund (UK), conducted all the negotiations, saw 67 out of the 69 netsmen and resurrected the negotiations after they had collapsed in October. As your Lordships probably know, the start of the negotiations seemed a curious process. The Environment Agency went to the netsmen, who naturally thought there was a vast pool of limitless money. The price for which they originally asked was £11 million, which was clearly hopeless. A formula was then produced which allied the average catch with the age of the netsmen. That was not very clever for a netsman aged 62 with quite a catch because he was not going to get very much money and of course he wanted to go on netting until he was well into his seventies. So that failed; there was a big gap, and the negotiations had to be called off in October. Then word came back that many netsmen individually would like to take part.
	The current state of play is that the funds raised, including the £1.25 million put forward by DEFRA, plus what has been substantially promised, mainly from the Tweed and Tay, amounted to £2.2 million in total. The amount required is £3,300,954. There is a gap of £1.1 million. As of today, I think a bank loan will be in place to provide the money, which has to be paid in two tranches on 31st May this year and 31st May next year. But there is still a huge requirement to guarantee that money in six weeks' time. To date, £350,000 has been underwritten. There is an underwriting gap of about £750,000.
	I spoke to the district fishery boards today about the boards which are most directly affected in Scotland—we must remember that 80 per cent of the fish that are caught come up to Scotland. The rivers that benefit—the Tweed, Forth, Tay, Esks, round to the Dee and any smaller rivers in between—are required to put up the bulk of the money. Tweed and Tay have done so. I think and hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is fishing next week, he will make it very clear up and down the Dee that they need to dip deeply into their pockets. I have said the same to the Esks today.
	But then I said to all other rivers, from the Spey round anti-clockwise to the Allan and the Nith, if we let this go, nobody will ever talk to us again. It has to be achieved, because how can Orri Vigfusson conceivably keep negotiating with the Greenlanders and the Faroese when they say, "The Brits are just catching our fish off their own coast anyway"? How can the Government possibly be urged, as they have been today, to talk to the Irish Government—and let us not forget the Northern Irish drift nets—when our nets are still there? We have about six weeks to achieve this.
	I told those rivers in Scotland which will not benefit that they must go back to their boards. Last week I persuaded my own board, the Conon, to put up £10,000 towards this. We will not benefit. If every river that does not directly benefit put up money on the same scale, the figure would reduce by about £250,000. That would be significantly helpful to the project.
	That is how I wanted to use my time. Any influence that your Lordships have to see that we must grasp this opportunity would be helpful. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was saying so eloquently when I came in, it is the single biggest issue that we face at the moment.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to speak in this debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, very much on initiating this debate. I declare an interest in that I fish on the River Usk. I was a member of Aberystwyth Angling Association for 14 years and my father-in-law was the secretary of Castle Douglas Angling Association for 10 years.
	The plight we are talking about is the plight of the king of fish. It is a truly magnificent creature, with a brilliant and amazing life cycle, as many have said. I believe its life is an epic story, and this debate has threaded its way through that epic story. Those of your Lordships who may at a young age have read Salar the Salmon by Williamson, know that the salmon had an epic life in those days, but, my word, when we look at the problems that salmon are confronted with these days there is no comparison whatsoever with that pre-war situation.
	I grew up between the rivers Usk and Wye and the salmon was the greatest prize of all. Indeed, salmon was not for toffs, it was also for Taffs in my part of the world. The miners of south Wales are fantastic fly fishermen; they participated then and participate now in many aspects of fly fishing.
	Many thousands of salmon were caught in the nets in the Wye. Fifteen years ago there were regular catches of over 8,000 salmon on the rods. Now we are down to 400 or 500, a very sad state of affairs. In fact, the River Wye has very few salmon indeed, yet it was undoubtedly the greatest salmon river in England and Wales in its time. The spring run had salmon up to 45 pounds every season when I was a youngster. On the Usk, the spring runs contained salmon of 30 pounds. What has happened is nothing less than a huge tragedy to those fisheries over the years. This is repeated, as noble Lords have said, all over the country. Indeed, I inform my noble friend Lord Thomas that I fish in another Dee—the River Dee in Galloway—which is a very good river.
	We have had some tremendous contributions in this debate. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, whom I know very well from my area for the work that he has done. I shall mention some of the points that he made in a minute.
	We know that there are more than 3 million fishermen and women in the United Kingdom at least—some say 5 million. It is the greatest leisure sport that there is, and I am pleased to see that youngsters are being encouraged to start fishing at an early age. I started at the age of five, and the sport has never left me and has occupied many happy hours over the years. When young people are introduced to fishing, they take it up with alacrity and enthusiasm. That may be the way ahead for many of our youth, but are they going to have anything to catch? That is the problem.
	What has happened over the years, and why? Pollution and acid rain have produced poor quality water in upland streams and has not been good for rearing young fish. Sheep dip has not helped. We have seen many nefarious substances in sheep dips, some that kill humans and some that kill just about everything that lives in the river. Something must be done about that. Smolts are having a hard time at sea, as we have heard. Drift netting in the North Sea is problematical—even more so on the Irish west coast, where 237,000 salmon are caught annually. Clearly, that matter must be addressed urgently, which can be done only by co-operation between governments.
	Drift netting is extraordinary. We have heard of drift nets that go on for many miles behind the trawlers. People have told me that some nets stretch for as far as 40 miles; I do not know whether that is an exaggeration. The gap between south-west Scotland and Northern Ireland is regularly fished with nets that go right across that gap at the top of the Irish Sea. Exploitation of the Greenland fishery and salmon feeding grounds is another vexed question that has been only partly resolved.
	The advances in technology of trawlers, in terms of sonar sighting of fish and more effective methods of fishing, have also taken their toll. The issue of fish farming and the consumption of sand eels associated with that—they often provide the fish feed for the farm salmon—has also been problematical, as has the use of chemicals and the escape of farm salmon.
	All that has had a huge impact on tourism. In my part of the world, ghillies have lost their jobs and there are hardly any left, especially on the River Wye.
	Headwaters need to be cleaned up and opened up to improve matters, and there is a problem with predators, especially mink and goosanders. Indeed, one brood of goosanders in five weeks can consume as many as 25,000 fry. That is an extraordinary statistic. Some of those predators must be eliminated, and I am pleased that the Government have said that they will make efforts to eliminate mink, which destroy many things in the countryside, including fish.
	Some points were made to me by the Carmarthenshire Angling Association about the River Towy, which runs through Carmarthen. The rod catch in 1975 was 1,300 salmon, whereas in 1998 it was 360. Likewise, the nets caught 670 salmon in 1975, while last season they took 20.
	The impact of the Irish drift nets on English and Welsh salmon stocks has been enormous. Indeed, Ireland itself licenses 435 miles of drift nets on the west coast alone. We all know how many salmon have been caught that way. In England and Wales, seven out of 16 designated rivers are failing to reach minimum conservation targets in special areas of conservation. That part of the European habitat directive is not being met because of that situation. The Irish receive 700,000 euros for their fisheries guarantee fund.
	What can be done? I suggest the following agenda. Drift netting should be banned and nets should be bought out in the interests of preventing the extinction of salmon. The problems in the North Sea have been addressed fully in the debate, and I fully back what has been said. I certainly back what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said about the introduction of UK legislation, especially as a result of the Warren committee's recommendations. It is overdue and urgent, and I hope that the Minister will find the time to get that into the legislative programme as soon as possible.
	We should prevent fishing for sand eels and secure international agreements, especially with the Irish, and get the British Government to put the case and meet the Irish. That would be in the interests of the Irish, too. Much tighter regulation on salmon farming must surely occur. It might improve the situation if we put a moratorium on the sale of wild fish—there should be no market for the sale of wild fish, as in New Zealand.
	The problem of global warming is also threatening. The Atlantic Salmon Trust and Federation held a symposium in August 2002, entitled "Salmon at the Edge".

Noble Lords: Time!

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I realise that I have only 10 minutes. I am just finishing.
	In fact, "Salmon at Sea" was the title. The symposium focused on the decline of survival of smolts, crossbreeding with farm salmon, and the 900,000 smolts that are caught by mackerel fishers. All governments should co-operate on the Atlantic coast. There should be a closure of the mixed stock netting that goes on and we must establish a right to protect Atlantic salmon. As Wilfred Carter said at that meeting:
	"What hope for the world if we cannot conserve the salmon in its environment?"

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before the noble Duke speaks, I should explain that an error was made on the speakers' list. Both the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, should have been allocated 10 minutes each.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Forsyth for introducing this telling and essential debate. It is with some trepidation that I attempt to wind up from these Benches, in the face of so much expertise from around the House.
	If nothing else today, we are correcting an omission. The noble Lord, Lord Nickson, has already pointed out that the Floor of this House has not seen a debate on major salmon and fresh water issues since he presented his report of the Scottish salmon fisheries taskforce, on 30th July 1997. In the meantime, the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review Group's Warren report was brought out in March 2000. The Government's response came out in February 2001. Neither has been the subject of anything more than a few preliminary questions by persistent fishermen such as the noble Lord, Lord Moran.
	When we get back to the old question of man's impact on nature, it is always interesting to see, as my noble friend Lord Lindsay said, how the same old arguments repeat themselves—and, if I am not much mistaken, by many of the same characters who appeared in the debate in 1997.
	I must declare an interest as owner of part of a salmon fishery in Scotland. However, unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron, my knowledge does not go back to the Hunter reports.
	The publication in 1997 of the Nickson report and the debate that followed it provide a useful benchmark. Given the nature of salmon, the report had to take into account the whole fishery of the British Isles. It is interesting to assess what progress has been made since the report's conclusions were drawn.
	On the questions surrounding land management, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, mentioned that there are now polices that discourage riparian grazing and allow the establishment of buffer zones along rivers. Much work has also taken place in forestry management to avoid the release of silt from new drainage and to remove conifers from around river margins, where they can contribute to acidification.
	On pollution, we now have much stronger regulation of both point source pollution and diffuse source pollution, such as is being introduced under the nitrate vulnerable zone legislation. This factor may contribute to an improvement in the rivers of Wales mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.
	On water extraction from rivers and other sources, we are to see, for the first time, comprehensive centralised control on extraction following the passage of the Water Bill which is presently before this House. Also to come is the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive, which, despite the fact that water is still a government-controlled industry in Scotland, has already been introduced in Scotland by primary legislation.
	Perhaps I may express one worry in that regard. At the moment, there appears to be a further threat to capital investment in many west coast Scottish rivers—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Nickson. But in this case it is due to the uncertainty introduced through the Scottish land Bill and the crofting community's right to buy. I know that this is not an issue for the Minister in this House, but it underlines the fact that, if we value salmon fishing, adequate long-term finance is required. As the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, emphasised, we ignore that point at our peril.
	One of the recommendations of the Warren review was that there should be an accelerated procedure in emergencies for making by-laws. In their response, the Government promised to give that further consideration. Will the Minister tell the House what progress has been made?
	On the question of primary legislation, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, perhaps I may remind the Minister that the Nickson report recommended in 1997 that a Bill to consolidate salmon fisheries legislation should be presented to Parliament as soon as possible. The matter was raised again in the Warren review. Even in a Written Answer in another place on 16th December 2002, the Minister stated the Government's intention to introduce new proposals for salmon and freshwater fisheries to implement the agreed changes. Will the Minister give the House an insight into when we are likely to see a White Paper or some indication of what the Government propose?
	I must pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Monro for his work over the years on drift netting and on so many other aspects of fishing. As many speakers have said, drift netting remains a major bone of contention. It has been the subject of a campaign for 40 years.
	The UK has four areas in which drift netting has taken place. It is now banned in Scotland—and has been since 1962—and the ban has been extended to trawls and gill nets. Northern Ireland is now subject to a buy-out programme which, according to a report in the Belfast Telegraph last November, had achieved a 60 per cent buy-out for a cost of £2 million in compensation, with the hope that it will finally reach 80 per cent.
	My noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, gave an up-to-date picture of the situation in the North East of England. In their response to the Warren review, the Government said that they would introduce a power to,
	"restrict the numbers of net licences for economic and social reasons",
	but,
	"it should not be used to deprive netsmen solely and mainly dependent on fishing for their livelihood".
	In conjunction with what the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, has told us, implementation has been held up for want of other funding, with considerable blame being directed, even in this House, at the Scottish Executive. I ask the Minister: how many licences have been surrendered in that fishery since the report in 2000, and is the ultimate target of the Environment Agency in this area total closure or a reduction to 17, as was mentioned by one of my noble friends earlier; and is that considered adequate?
	The biggest issue, as so many speakers have said, remains the west coast Irish drift net fishermen. The efforts of the Irish Government to reduce catches have so far resulted in a reduction of only 8 per cent. This and other frustrations are probably behind the effort that is being made to apply the EU habitats directive, where Atlantic salmon is listed in Annex 2, relating to the conservation of species, to this fishery.
	When the directive was considered at the time of the Nickson report, it was thought to apply only while salmon were in fresh water. Do the Government have any evidence that this can now be used in the marine situation? As my noble friend Lord Monro so ably put it, can they see their way to taking this issue forward?
	The majority of speakers have highlighted another area where considerable damage is being done by Russian pelagic fishing-boats and the by-catch which has to be thrown away. It may help the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, if I tell her that the Scottish Executive has taken this matter up with the Russian Federation. Do the Government have any plans to assist in solving this problem? It is an area where the UK Government could exert some influence.
	I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to what has been at times a sharp and incisive debate.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, if the noble Duke felt trepidation in replying to the debate, I must say that I do.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, for raising this subject for debate. Both the preparation and the debate itself have certainly informed me. Frankly, until that point my knowledge of salmon fishing was virtually nil. I have never fished, and am never likely to—I have neither the patience nor the masochism! However, I recognise that it does, in practice, give a large number of people an enormous amount of enjoyment, as it does to many noble Lords who are present. It is also the case that I have no direct responsibility for fisheries. Tributes have rightly been paid to Elliot Morley, who has done much in this field over recent years, as did many of his predecessors.
	I have an additional problem, in that I shall not be tempted by the noble Lord, Lord Monro—or even by my noble friend Lord Sewel—to override the devolved powers of the Scottish Executive and shall have to disappoint him if he expects me to do so.
	On the other hand, in my ramblings in England, Scotland and Ireland, I have seen the salmon run, and leap, in both natural and artificial surroundings. It is a magnificent creature. It would undoubtedly be a tragedy for us all if this fish disappeared. The figures for the long-run decline indicate that we are faced with a serious problem. I can assure noble Lords that Her Majesty's Government are determined to do something about that where they can.
	This is a complex issue. As my noble friend Lord Sewel said—as did the noble Lord, Lord Livsey—there are at least 27 causes for the decline in the numbers of salmon. Some of the culprits have been identified in the debate. I did not list all 27, but I noted: fish farms; nets; sand eels; seals; the Irish; and cormorants. There are quite a lot of factors involved.
	Some other factors, which are not clear culprits—such as climate change and the total management of estuaries—are at least as important as these identifiable causes. That is one of the reasons why it is not all doom and gloom. Salmon fisheries in some of our rivers have improved significantly, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, indicated. While his noble friend Lord Livsey bemoans the situation on the Wye, there are other Welsh rivers which have improved. Indeed, it has recently been announced that on the Tweed—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in his opening remarks—rod catches for 2002 were the highest for a decade. Stocks are also increasing on many other rivers. I understand that 20 per cent of last year's rod catch in England and Wales came from rivers that did not support salmon fisheries 40 years ago. So there is hope when we manage our resources effectively. Salmon have even passed by this Chamber, which would certainly not have been possible 40 years ago.
	Nevertheless, this is an extremely serious problem and a number of measures are needed to deal with it. In 1998, ICES advised that the Atlantic salmon were in decline throughout their range and that extreme caution should be exercised in their management. Consequently, in England and Wales, the Environment Agency has advertised a package of measures to help conserve salmon stocks, particularly spring run fish. These so-called "national salmon by-laws" were confirmed by Ministers and came into effect in April 1999. The measures include delaying the start of the salmon netting season, restricting the use of certain baits and methods and the mandatory release of all salmon caught by rod and line before 15th June—which happens to be my birthday—each year.
	Further local restrictions have been introduced where necessary and the Environment Agency is to carry out a review of the effectiveness of these national measures. So a lot has been done internally in terms of river management. Additionally, as the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and the noble Duke said, various other measures to restrict the pollution of our rivers will help.
	More widely, there are considerable problems with drift nets to which various noble Lords referred, particularly in relation to the drift net fisheries on the north-east coast and especially as they affect fish returning to Scottish waters. The UK Government have long acknowledged those problems. I shall return to the point.
	However, the Government's overall approach to salmon fisheries has been very much informed by the Warren report, to which my noble friend Lady Golding and others referred. It recommended that the Government should provide pump-priming funding to launch compensation arrangements to accelerate the voluntary phase-out of fisheries such as those in the North East. The recommendation was accepted and the Government are providing substantial funds for the objective. The noble Lord, Lord Nickson, updated us on the rather difficult negotiations. I tell the noble Duke that the fishery is subject to measures that are designed eventually to reduce the number of netsmen to zero. Since the phase-out began in 1992 it has been reduced from 142 to 69.
	The discussions on the voluntary buy-out are, as I said, continuing. The issue of further funding is doubtless due to be considered by others in the context of the latest information which we received today. I shall not comment further on the responsibilities or otherwise of the Scottish Executive in these matters, but no doubt they will take note of your Lordships' debate and of developments.
	The Irish are the other group affected by the target. Of course many other salmon net fisheries operate in UK waters, including those of the Russians, but it is widely accepted that the Irish drift net fishery takes salmon from English and Welsh as well as Irish rivers. The issue is therefore of concern to the Irish and the British Governments. The British Government have been in discussions with the Irish, and it is true that the Irish experts largely agree with us. However, the politics of fisheries in Ireland has hitherto prevented the Irish Government from taking effective measures. Nevertheless, we continue to approach them in that respect. As for the other governments, including the Russian Government, I shall have to write to the noble Duke. I am not aware of the precise situation in relation to Russia.
	As I said, the framework of our policy on the management of salmon and fresh water fisheries was set by the Warren report—which made almost 200 recommendations, all but five of which the Government fully or largely accepted. Many of the recommendations have been taken forward by the Environment Agency and the relevant government departments. Although it recommends action for application in England and Wales, the recommendations also apply elsewhere. Among the many issues which the review report highlighted was the need to continue and improve communication and collaboration between governments and the industry on fisheries management.
	The majority of the recommendations can be and are being carried through without primary legislation. I appreciate that a number of noble Lords have expressed disappointment that we have not yet had a salmon and fresh waters fisheries Bill to introduce some of these measures. Discussions on the programme to be announced in the Queen's Speech are never revealed in advance, but I can assure your Lordships that DEFRA remains committed to such legislation.
	As for the Scottish position, a similar review carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, has meant that most of the recommendations have been implemented. Implementation of some of the measures in Scotland has not required primary legislation, but others will not be implemented without it.
	It is clear that many of the more complex problems cannot be resolved locally, nationally or by national legislation but demand a collective awareness and agreement at a wider, international level. That is where NASCO—the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation—has a vital role to play. Although its only regulatory role is to establish quotas for salmon fisheries off Greenland and the Faroe Islands, it is also a very important source of co-ordination for international research and provides a very useful forum for discussion of matters such as the effects of fish farming and the potential impact of genetically modified organisms.
	The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, raised particular concerns about the proposed salmon farm on the River Ettrick. Although I recognise the significance of that case, I would, even in an English planning decision, be prevented by my lawyers from commenting. I am also subject to a constitutional bar on commenting on matters in the planning system in Scotland. However, I think that the tone of this debate recognises that the Ettrick situation could have implications for salmon fisheries which need to be taken into account.
	Generally, it is clear that fish farming—or aquaculture—has many advantages, not least the relatively cheap supply of fish to consumers in the United Kingdom and abroad. We are also aware of some of the downsides of aquaculture. It is important to recognise that the decline of the North Atlantic salmon began long before the start of significant levels of fish farming in this country. Fish farming therefore cannot be recognised as the main or initial cause of the salmon decline. Indeed, fish farming—albeit not sea fish farming—has been a well-established feature of the British landscape for many years. However, the Government recognise the concerns. There is a significant problem with escapes—400,000 is the usually accepted figure—on which, to minimise them, sea fish farmers need proper advice. The prevalence of sea lice and other fish parasites and diseases also cause significant problems particularly for young salmon.
	It is necessary to maintain a balance between the advantages of aquaculture and fish farming and the need, as the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, said, to improve it. I understand that the Scottish Executive has safeguards in place to protect the marine environment and that they are constantly revising them.
	There are other threats to salmon. My noble friend Lady Golding mentioned the parasite, whose Latin name I shall not attempt to pronounce. I shall simply refer to it as GS. That parasite originated in the Baltic and spread to Norway, where it wiped out salmon stocks in more than 20 rivers. It has also been found on the Continent. It is already a notifiable disease here but would be a serious problem were it to break out here. We need to ensure that precautions are taken. There is a need for the public, and especially those involved in recreational fishing both here and abroad, to recognise the problem.
	Although GS cannot survive in seawater, it can survive for several days in damp freshwater conditions. Therefore, it could be brought here in plastic bags, fishing equipment and so on. It is important that those who engage in recreational fishing are aware of that. In April last year DEFRA and SEERAD published a code of practice to raise awareness of that problem and to avoid the introduction of GS to Great Britain. The code gives detailed information about the activities that could potentially result in the introduction of that parasite. We expect soon to issue a new leaflet in the series, Keep Fish Diseases Out which gives more guidance on preventive measures. We intend to give the leaflet wide publicity.
	Another threat mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mason and, in some detail, by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, was that of genetically modified salmon. There is considerable concern about that matter. Research activity has been carried out in the United States. No genetically modified salmon is farmed in the UK and any application to do so would have to go through a very extensive and rigorous review process. There is no sign of that even beginning to happen. I have corresponded with the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on the situation in the United States in that regard. The latest situation is that the applications to farm such salmon in the United States have not been processed. Therefore, the potential problem is no greater than it was a few months ago.
	As regards marine fish farming in Scotland, I understand that legislation in Scotland now allows Scottish Ministers to make orders enabling planning authorities to discharge planning functions in relation to marine fish farming developments up to the three mile limit. That is an important extension of their powers.
	The Government are providing some £9.8 million grant-in-aid in England and Wales to help the Environment Agency's fisheries function achieve its key aims and objectives.
	As my noble friend Lady Golding said, the creation of DEFRA brought within the ambit of one government department responsibility for most of the key functions affecting freshwater fisheries, including water quality, agriculture and other matters which affect the management of fisheries and of rivers. That is an important development. We are still in the process of bringing that together.
	I probably have time to discuss one or two other threats to salmon mentioned by a number of noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Monro, and others mentioned birds that predate on fish, in particular cormorants. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, also mentioned that matter. We are aware that cormorants have extended their range and now overwinter and feed at many inland water sites. But although the population has increased, the indications are that it is now stabilising. But it can nevertheless have a very serious localised effect. It may be helpful to explain the legal position on licensing of ways to deal with such predators.
	Fishery managers may apply for licences under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to shoot piscivorous birds on a local basis and for a limited period of time. I stress that where licences are issued, this is done primarily to aid scaring rather than culling and to provide point defence for fish at particular locations and during vulnerable times in their life history. These licences are not permanent but are available in certain circumstances.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, that angling is a sport that is clearly enjoyed not only by a large number of your Lordships but also by many millions of citizens. I regret in a sense that the matter has been raised again but I understand why it has been. I reiterate Her Majesty's Government's support for angling and for the wider issues of freshwater fishery management. I make it absolutely clear that we have no intention whatever of introducing legislation to restrict or ban angling. I hope that your Lordships, particularly those who have spoken in the debate, enjoy many years of fishing, in particular fishing for salmon. I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for initiating the debate and thank other noble Lords who participated in it. I thank them for the information they provided.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I confess that when I tabled the Motion and was successful in the ballot I panicked because I wondered whether anyone would speak on the subject. I could not have dreamt that there would be such an array of talent, knowledge and expertise. Indeed, I am embarrassed that so many of the contributions, to which I cannot refer individually, came from noble Lords who have made it their life's work to try to do something about the decline of salmon stocks.
	I sympathise with the Minister's plight in responding to the debate but I hope that he will take away three points from it. First, there is consensus across this House in all parties and on the Cross Benches on the need for action. Secondly, there is frustration at the inability to move forward on legislation in England and Wales following the work that was carried out. The noble Baroness, Lady Golding, made a tremendous plea for action in that respect, to which I am sure the Minister will feel able to respond.
	Thirdly, I refer to the urgency of action on drift netting. I appreciate the Minister's difficulty in respect of devolution. But devolution was never intended to prevent our acting on an issue which affects the whole of the United Kingdom. That message has come out loud and clear. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will discuss that matter with his colleagues, reflect on his new-found knowledge and recognise that that is an urgent and important matter.
	The Minister said that he did not have the patience to be a fisherman. However, he is a Minister.
	If he listens to the speeches he will realise that the patience of fishermen has run out. He as a Minister can do his country, and indeed the international community, a singular service if he focuses on the arguments put forward tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
	Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities 2003

Lord Davies of Oldham: rose to move, That the draft code of practice laid before the House on 10th February be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the code was first introduced in 1978. It has been revised several times since then to reflect changes to trade union law and to employment practices more generally. ACAS has produced this latest version of the code in response to the Employment Act 2002. Section 43 of that Act provides rights to union learning representatives—ULRs—to "reasonable" time off with pay to carry out their functions and to undergo training. The Act also gives the right to "reasonable" time off without pay to union members wishing to access the services of ULRs.
	Union learning representatives are lay union representatives. Their main function is to advise union members about their training and educational and developmental needs. They are particularly effective at raising interest in training and development, especially among the lowest skilled workers and those with literacy and numeracy problems.
	Unions have had a long-standing interest in training matters, but ULRs are a new phenomenon. Just six years ago, there were very few of them indeed. Now, I am glad to say, their numbers have grown to more than 4,500.
	The Act specifies that either ACAS or the Secretary of State may produce a code containing practical guidance in two areas: first, the time off entitlements to ULRs and, secondly, what training should be sufficient for ULRs to begin carrying out their functions. In the event, the Government thought that it was more appropriate for ACAS, with its wealth of employment relations experience, to produce the code. ACAS issued an initial draft last year for consultation. Fifty responses were received, the majority of which were generally supportive.
	The bulk of the draft code before us incorporates guidance contained in the existing code. Much of the wording is therefore unaltered. However, some minor changes were made to update the text. For example, paragraph 11 states that unions and employers might wish to negotiate about "family friendly policies". Another small change at paragraph 16 relates to the entitlement of lay representatives to time off to accompany workers to disciplinary and grievance hearings. That right was introduced in the Employment Relations Act 1999 and came into effect in September 2000.
	As I said earlier, the most significant changes to the code concern the addition of guidance about ULRs. Paragraphs 13 and 14 cover their time off entitlements. Those paragraphs, together with Section 4 of the code, give guidance on what factors or circumstances should be taken into account when assessing whether time off for ULRs would be "reasonable".
	The second strand of the code's guidance relates to the application of the "training condition". The Act requires ULRs to be sufficiently trained to carry out their duties either at the time they begin functioning as a ULR or within six months of that date. That latter time limit provides for individuals to receive paid time off to receive the initial ULR training.
	The code of practice gives guidance at paragraphs 22 to 26 on what may constitute "sufficient training" in practice. Useful examples are given on how employees could demonstrate that they have received sufficient training. They include attendance at a training course or the shadowing of an experienced ULR. Relevant previous experience may also help to demonstrate that that condition is met.
	We did not want the training condition to be restrictive or narrow. That is why we did not want it to be tied to any specific qualification. People learn in different ways. Formal learning leading to a qualification suits some people but not others.
	Noble Lords may be aware that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments made a number of observations on the code. Those observations relate to Section 199(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which provides that the code must contain guidance on time off for trade union activities that are connected with industrial action.
	The committee recognised that the code's wording is sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 199(3). However, it reported that the code did not specifically refer to those parts of the text that fulfil the requirement under that section. The committee considered that an explicit cross-reference to Section 199(3) would make matters clearer. We are grateful to the committee for its views, which we take extremely seriously. The code is designed to provide practical guidance to trade unionists, employers and individuals when they apply the ULR entitlements at the workplace. It is therefore written in a style which is accessible to the practitioner audience. The absence of a cross-reference does not significantly weaken the purpose of the code. However, the Government will certainly draw the committee's observations to the attention of ACAS and invite it to give them due consideration when the code is next revised.
	ACAS has drawn on its rich pool of knowledge of employment regulations to revise the code. The text is based heavily on the existing code, which has worked very well and given helpful advice to many thousands of practitioners. I am confident that the latest version will maintain that excellent record and that it will prove invaluable guidance to all concerned. Therefore, I strongly commend the code to the House for approval.
	Moved, That the draft code of practice laid before the House on 10th February be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for explaining the code. It received a fairly full discussion in another place and a number of questions arose from that. I want to reinforce one or two of those matters and add one or two myself.
	First, I want to refer to a point which I do not believe was made in another place. The noble Lord referred to there having been 50 responses. It seems to me that, when one thinks of the number of employers, that level of response is fairly pathetic, especially if the CBI, which is responsible for companies employing very large numbers of people across the country, is counted as one of the 50. By and large, the CBI does represent larger companies. Often when burdens are placed on industry, the larger companies are far better able than medium and small-sized companies to meet the costs involved. I do not know whether, in responding to the debate, the noble Lord will be able to say what the department thinks of the level of response. On the basis of 50 responses, I believe it is difficult to determine how the code was received by employers.
	Next, I turn to the report of the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. I refer to the first column of the report—col. 3—where the committee discusses the number of ULRs. My understanding is that the number will rise substantially to 22,000 union learning representatives. I quote from the report:
	"We believe that with the new statutory rights there could be more than 22,000 ULRs in place by 2010 supporting as many as 250,000 workers".—[Official Report, Commons Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 2/4/03; col. 3.]
	That is one ULR per 11 workers. Is that really what the noble Lord is advocating? What would the cost of that be to industry and what is the impact assessment to employers expected to be in 2010, particularly for medium-sized and smaller employers? That seems to me to be an enormously high ratio.
	On the general point of education, I do not want to say anything that would argue against the importance of people continuing to improve their skills. Whatever the level of skills, there should always be an opportunity to go to the next level. But the predominant talk about the kind of skills addressed by the ULRs is that they are mainly basic skills. That predominantly forms the work of ULRs. If one looks across the piece in education, there are further education colleges, a university for industry, learndirect and learning and skills councils, not to mention the fact that the skills mostly referred to are basic skills, which frankly should have been mastered when the young people were at school.
	Therefore, one wonders why there needs to be another complete layer of people who are concerned with improving skills in the workplace. Of course, there is a responsibility on employers, and one recognises that. But the Adult Literacy Basic Skills Unit—I believe that it has a new name these days—also deals with adult literacy and numeracy and basic skills. I wonder whether the noble Lord is able to comment on that.
	On reading partly the code and partly the report of the debate in another place, I found it difficult to know exactly who these people are and what they are. What is their job description? Do they have a full-time job description? Does the work form part of their normal work? Are they normal employees of companies who take on the work as an extra duty? If they do, what is the minimum qualification required to undertake the whole business of addressing the education and skills needs of other employees? It seems to me that, if they are in that position, they should be fairly skilled themselves, but I am not sure whether they need a minimum level of qualification.
	The other point is that peppered throughout the code is the word "reasonable". In another place the Minister was not able to throw much light on what that meant. It seemed that if a challenge was made it would presumably be left to tribunals to determine what was reasonable. But I believe that it is incumbent on someone to have a view about what would be a reasonable action on the part of employers, what would be unreasonable, and whether "reasonable" takes into account the size of a company, its ability to meet the training needs of its workforce and the inability of some very small firms to do so. I believe that more than 90 per cent of companies in this country employ fewer than 50 employees. So you are talking about large numbers of companies with small numbers of employees.
	Another question for the Minister is on the compulsory nature of the code. Why can we not leave it to the good will of the employers, co-operating with the unions? The Minister in another place spoke of the high level of co-operation between unions and employers. If that is the case, why do they need a compulsory code? A compulsory code smacks of "You must do this or else", and the "or else" is judged by the standard of reasonableness. As we do not know what "reasonableness" means, it seems to be a difficult proposition for employers.
	My final point is on burdens. Whenever we receive a code or a regulation or a statutory instrument from the Government that will have an impact on employers—usually the impact is one of cost and time but it is taken in isolation. One considers this to be a laudable activity; it concerns improving the skills of the workforce, with which it is hard to argue. But putting this code alongside all the other regulations on employers means that for many it will add up to a burden that they simply cannot absorb. If this is a compulsory activity for employers, they will have no choice. They either comply or they go to court, or, worse, they go out of business altogether. We know that that has been the case and that some have gone out of business simply because of the weight of regulation.
	The code means time off for the union learning representatives, for union members and for their representatives and it means time off for part-timers for trade union activities. It will also increase the burden on business, so it would be helpful if the Minister could let the House know the cost of the so-called predicted 22,000 ULRs—I notice that there could be more than 22,000—who will serve only 250,000 workers, a fraction of the workers in this country. What will be the impact on the employers who will have to meet their proportion of the costs, and what will it mean for a workforce, where a substitute workforce will be required to cover for those taking time off? If we are to pass a code of practice like this in Parliament, we owe employers and employees an explanation.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for explaining this new code of practice. As he said, it puts into effect the proposals in relation to statutory trade union learning representatives, which were incorporated, with support from these Benches, into last summer's Employment Act.
	The purpose of the trade union learning representatives is to facilitate access to learning in the workplace. At present, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made clear, the emphasis is on basic skills. There are some 7 million adult employees in this country—approximately 25 per cent of the workforce—without a level 2 qualification, which means that they do not have a qualification equivalent to five A to C grade GCSEs. Many of them have no qualifications at all. Many of those people have problems with basic literacy and numeracy, which, in turn, has knock-on effects on their ability to cope with more complex job responsibilities; for example, reading health and safety requirements on new machinery. That inhibits their performance in the workplace. A perennial problem of British industry is its low productivity performance.
	Pilot studies found that trade union learning representatives were an effective way of encouraging people with low skills levels to upgrade their skills. Often such people did not wish to reveal their lack of competence to their fellow workers, let alone to management, but many of them have been willing to talk to their trade union colleagues about those issues, seeing them as neutrals in whom they can confide. The success of the pilots encouraged the Government to incorporate the trade union learning representatives into the 2002 legislation.
	On these Benches we back the proposals 100 per cent. We share the Government's concern with the lack of basic skills in the workforce and we are pleased to see the success of the pilots. Building on them, the whole learndirect initiative plays an important part in the basic skills agenda. These initiatives are, as I understand them, complementary to the trade union learning representatives rather than being competitive with them. Many basic skills initiatives work with the trade union learning representatives.
	We welcome therefore the extension of the role of trade unions into the training function and the prospect that every unionised workplace will have such learning representatives. We are not worried about these issues because we think that—and many empirical studies have shown this—increased skills increase productivity. That is very much to the advantage of particularly small and medium-sized firms where the big problem of upgrading of, so to speak, hi-tech in low-tech industry really lies. One needs to concentrate on upgrading their skills. Getting in at the bottom and working bottom up is so important.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she not agree that some companies in the first place cannot even afford the time off for their employees? It is a vicious circle. If they cannot afford the time off, then the choice for them is to go out of business or to be taken to court.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I point out that these apply only to places that are unionised. Many very small industries are not unionised at the moment. That is perhaps one of their problems.
	We think that ACAS has struck the right balance in these proposals. It is obviously sensible to make sure that such people are properly trained before putting them into a position where they are advising others. We endorse these proposals.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses who have contributed to the debate. I shall try to answer as accurately as I can the specific questions which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, introduced into it. On the issue of consultation, representatives of smaller businesses did reply to it. ACAS certainly sent out its document for the widest possible consultation. The Institute of Directors, for instance, responded to it, as did the British Metals Recycling Association. That association contains many small companies. I recognise—I think we always feel this with any form of consultation—that if we have less than a 100 per cent response then we have not consulted everyone. It would always be advisable and best if we could. It is in the nature of these documents. It is a free country. People make up their own minds whether or not they respond. What we do have is an overwhelmingly positive response.
	The noble Baroness contends that that is principally because the larger companies would respond, but it is also the case that the larger companies are rather more involved in this work than the very smallest. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, indicated, the very small companies are less likely to have trade union representatives and therefore less likely to come within the scope of this measure. I accept the point that we would always want to get a 100 per cent response to consultation if that were ever possible.
	On the issue of basic skills, the noble Baroness referred to young people. I reassure her and confirm her in her own knowledge that we are not talking just about young people. The idea that the literacy and low skill levels of this country are attributable only to the 20 years in which the Conservative Government were in control of education would not be a fair charge to make. The story goes a long way back in terms of low level of skills in this country. What is different is that we now have an administration that is setting out to address it at the very highest level.
	I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in which she established the context for this code and the work to be done. It is in the context which the Chancellor put in his speech this afternoon on the Budget of how much we need to increase productivity. That does of course require the necessary investment and support to our industry in all kinds of ways. However, it also needs a significant level of skills in industry, as we know that by every international measure Britain compares very poorly in that respect. It is a key aspect in our relatively low level of productivity.
	That is why—although, as the noble Baroness rightly said, other agencies such as the Basic Skills Agency are involved in that work and doing an excellent job—there cannot be too much provision of opportunity to enhance skills among people. They must, by definition, have had a poor educational experience of some kind in the past and a dearth of opportunities, otherwise they would enjoy the skills that they require but clearly do not have. That is robbing them of their opportunities and, what is more, is robbing us in the wider society of the ability to benefit from their enhanced skills.
	That is why we consider that feature as important in contributing to the training opportunities of the country. Why is it compulsory? If all employers took such a keen interest in the development of their workforce, their training, education and opportunities for enhancement, they would have responded positively, in the way pleaded by the noble Baroness, to the measure and considered it as an opportunity to enhance their productivity and therefore their potential profit.
	In fact, of course, the charge that the noble Baroness laid at our door—the limited response—is part and parcel of what we know to be a generation-long problem, if not longer, of the relatively little attention paid to training and skills opportunities in this country. Employers must take their share of responsibility for that.
	The noble Baroness asked about the definition of "reasonableness". She no doubt knows that there is no statutory definition of "reasonableness" as, on the whole, the law is not constructed by theoretical philosophers and the definition of reasonableness is often contested by competing interests. However, within the framework of employment law and the relationship between employers and trade union representatives, we all know what we mean by reasonableness. We mean where a bargain can reasonably be struck.
	The noble Baroness is right to say that that will vary between a large company, which can allocate more time to a larger number of employees to engage in such activity, and a smaller company that needs the activity and energy of the people who work for it devoted overwhelmingly to the work that ensures that the company continues in business. But that is why the concept of reasonableness is there: because the bargain needs to be struck. I am happy to say that, on the whole, reasonableness works rather well in British industry at present. We have a basis of co-operation and understanding on which people are able to strike bargains within a framework of law.
	The law is necessary to ensure that trade unionists have rights and that employers have obligations to respond to them. Nevertheless, what must be achieved in the relationship between them must be reasonable. That is why that term appears in the code.
	On the question of how many ULRs will appear, I am tempted to say, in the vernacular, "The more, the merrier", but that might be too jocular. Let me state the obvious point. There are 100,000 full-time trade union representatives in this country. The figure cited of 22,000 by 2010 would mean that the number involved in that essential work would be only one-fifth of the total present number of full-time trade union representatives doing union work. I said full-time; I meant full-time and lay people who perform trade union work and are defined as trade union representatives.
	So we do not seek an expansion above and beyond what obtains at present. Those people will be far in excess of the number of ULRs. Far from being excessive—I think that the noble Baroness cited the figure of one in 11 workers—

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I did not say that the figure was excessive; I said that the figure cited by the Minister in another place was 22,000 for 250,000 workers. I simply said that that is one to each 11 employees.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I see that a slight misunderstanding has crept in. The Minister may have made an error; it is not unknown for Ministers to do so. But I must accept that the noble Baroness has quoted him accurately. She will recognise that, if such an error occurred, it was the result of a slip of the tongue. Clearly, with 22,000 new ULRs, there will not be one ULR to 11 workers in this country; otherwise, the workforce will have been decimated to such a level that the crisis would be far beyond the scope of education or this code. There is something wrong with the figures. I do not have them with me.
	I recognise that the noble Baroness queries the figures purely as part of a genuine enquiry and to seek reassurance that the numbers we propose will involve only one fifth of the present number of trade union representatives engaged in some lay trade union activity. From what I know, British industry has not come to a halt with 100,000 trade union representatives. I am sure that the noble Baroness will concur with that fact if with no other that I put forward.
	So I recognise the anxieties. Costs are involved—they are bound to be part of investment in people's skills development. The noble Baroness's question is quite right. I know how she strives—as, I hope, I do in a much humbler capacity—to enhance the educational achievements of school-leavers to reduce the skills deficit in British industry. But we have inherited the substantial problem of people who work in industry at present. We know that, for all sorts of reasons, we will never be totally successful with such education in schools. Therefore, training at the workplace will always be an essential investment. The code simply enjoins employers and trade unions to play their part in investing—through direct resources and, even more valuably, time. In doing so, they will be working in partnership. On that basis, I commend the code.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has not answered my questions. I did not argue against training in the workplace; I started my speech by saying how important it was. I asked what was the financial impact assessment of the order. A financial impact assessment is supposed to be made of all Bills, orders and regulations in this House.
	My other question, which was not referred to, is what is the minimum educational qualification of a person holding ULR status?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I apologise for not replying specifically to the question on costs. I am hoping to build on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that the cost must be balanced against the benefit from the enhanced skills of the workforce. The cost will be £6.3 million in the first year, rising to £26.1 million after eight years, when the ULR numbers have risen to 22,000. On that basis, the figures are not insignificant, but, given the training investment that we make in this country, neither should they cause undue concern.
	On qualifications, we do not believe that the training of ULRs should be approached on the basis of qualifications. People will be able to do the job on the basis of experience in the workplace. After all, we will be asking ULRs not to be trainers specifically but to introduce to those with needs the opportunities and signposts directing them to available help and resources to meet their needs. Within that framework, ULRs will play a very important part in the workplace of adding to the total resources that we develop to enhance the skills of the nation.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Coal-mining

Lord Hardy of Wath: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they are doing to develop clean coal technology and to maintain the mining engineering industry within the United Kingdom.
	My Lords, the matters to be raised in the debate this evening are of considerable significance and relevance. They touch on the White Paper. I recognise that, in that document, the Government took the long view and offered not merely hope but a degree of intention. Some refinement of short-term policy is required, especially if the Government are to fulfil their aspirations with regard to the economic supply of energy and to serve the environmental cause. Some decisions will need to be made relatively soon, and I hope that I shall be able to mention them.
	The White Paper confirmed that the United Kingdom would see a marked reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. No one could argue against that; planetary survival may make it essential. However, that view has led to the widespread suspicion that coal combustion and coal-mining will have to end in these islands. That would be unwise and unnecessary. Technological advance has made that clear. Coal can be burnt cleanly.
	There are two current approaches that should be pursued. Existing power stations could be retro-fitted with the relevant equipment. High-temperature, super-critical boilers can be used, offering thermal efficiencies at least 20 per cent above those currently achieved. A more modern plant with such equipment could save considerable emissions of carbon and save a good many hundreds of thousands of tonnes for emissions trading.
	The other approach is, perhaps, the more significant—modern coal gasification. It would certainly comply with the Kyoto aims, and it would produce hydrogen, which will be an important fuel source, and it could capture the carbon emission. If CO 2 storage could proceed rapidly, such developments would be extremely attractive. The White Paper says that the future of coal-fired electricity generation depends on clean coal technology. Clean coal technology now allows that condition to be met.
	In recent weeks, the United States Government, despite all their other interests and concerns, have provided 2 billion dollars for such a plant. There is another plant in Florida, run, I think, by Texaco. There is a demonstration plant in the Netherlands. We could go ahead rapidly here. I hesitate to give the name of the place because my pronunciation of Welsh names is not particularly good. It has an indecipherable name, and I am not insulting anyone present by saying that except my noble friend. I shall not try to say the name. It is near Seven Sisters, and it would burn anthracite and petrocoke that had already been cleaned. That plant could serve the Principality well.
	There is a very relevant project in Yorkshire that could proceed. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will recall Hatfield colliery. He will have visited it during his long tenure of the chairmanship of the Coal Board. Hatfield colliery can now expect a substantial future because, beside it, there will be—there could be—two such plants. The first already has full planning permission, and the second has outline permission. Those two plants could go ahead without delay, and they would make a substantial contribution to our energy requirements. They would capture the CO 2 . They would produce hydrogen, and the CO 2 could be stored readily, as the plants are not that far from the North Sea.
	I note that Her Majesty's Government have some anxiety about the legal position with regard to carbon storage. It does not seem to worry the Norwegians, who already do it. In any case, I do not believe that since it is being stored sub-sea, there would be any international objection to that sensible and profoundly desirable development.
	Coal has been mined in South Yorkshire for many centuries. The first recorded evidence of mining was in the year 1296 in what was at that time the parish of Wath-upon-Dearne. There are very few collieries in the county now but large numbers have existed. Indeed, there were 12 collieries in my constituency when I was elected to the Commons in 1970. There were another 25 within a three mile radius of the constituency boundary—I believe, just one is left now.
	Therefore, very few people work in the industry today. However, there is an almost tribal interest in it because it was a dominant part of our economy for many generations. There is an increasing awareness that although the pits in our area have largely gone, coke still has a considerable future. The same argument applies to coal-mine methane. At the weekend, there was an interesting television programme which attracted considerable interest in my region.
	Methane is a noxious gas. Over the years it must have killed thousands of people—or, perhaps, scores of thousands of people—in the mining industry. So those who have any interest in mining feel very resentful that still it is allowed to enter the atmosphere when it could be sensibly transformed into electricity—sites are largely quite close to the national grid. It could therefore make a good contribution.
	There is an overwhelming anxiety about gases like carbon dioxide, but methane is 22 times more noxious than the normal greenhouse gases that we tend to be excited about. The Germans, perhaps more thriftily, take a much more advanced view.
	A number of us—the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Oxburgh and my noble friends Lord Dormand and Lord Jenkins—have met Ministers a number of times during the past two years. We have had a courteous and interested reception, but action is still not taken. Those of us who live in the coal fields object to the poison from beneath our feet poisoning people some distance away. It is unnecessary; it could be turned to very useful purpose.
	There is a school of thought that coal mining should cease. But that is a foolish proposition, partly because if it ceased in Britain, that reduction would have very little effect on the total amount of mining on this planet. India, China and the United States would continue to mine vast quantities of coal and the reduction of our contribution would scarcely be noticed in a planetary sense.
	However, if mining did cease, the mining engineering industry would not have a home base. Given that we have invested a lot of money in clean coal technology, that would be throwing away the investment we have made. It would also be foolish for another reason. In the 13 collieries currently operated by UK Coal, there were no recorded major or significant accidents in seven of those collieries in February. The total rate for injury accidents in the mining industry in February was 2.5 per 100,000 man shifts. That is a situation which would not have been credible 50 years ago when there was a considerable toll of life and limb in the industry.
	It is not only safety that has been served, productivity has soared. Of the 16 coal-faces operated by UK Coal in February, seven produced over 5,000 tonnes a day. Two faces—Kellingley and Howarth—produced over 7,000 tonnes a day, and February was not the best of the past 12 months.
	At the same time, development work has proceeded. At seven of the collieries in UK Coal, which is the majority of our collieries in Britain, the rate of advance in development work exceeded the target by over 50 per cent. Those achievements are not entirely unexpected. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and our late and lamented colleague, Lord Haslam, were well aware, during their chairmanships of the industry, that productivity was gradually, but definitely and remorselessly, extending. We do not have the thin seams that my noble friend Lord Lofthouse would work in when he was a young man.
	But the Government have been wrong and they have been wrong before. I shall explain another reason why I think that error should be accepted as a possibility. When the industry was privatised, the government of the day produced a prospectus which listed the coal reserves for each colliery. Of the collieries now in the ownership of UK Coal, the prospectus listed coal reserves of 26.1 million tonnes. Since 1994, a great deal of mining has gone on and those collieries may already have produced 26.1 million tonnes of coal, but the reserves today at those collieries stand at 63 million tonnes. That needs some explanation, and the explanation is quite simple.
	In the 1980s I had an opportunity to visit a huge mining engineering exhibition held at the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham. I attended a lunch there, which was addressed by Mr McGregor. In his speech, Mr McGregor made a very important announcement, saying that there were no coal reserves in the United Kingdom unless they could be profitably mined immediately. Some people clapped and gave him a standing ovation. I remained seated because I regarded that view as silly then and idiotic today. It is an idiotic view because at the time when Mr McGregor spoke, the industry was still working thin seams and we had not yet seen the great technological advances that have now been made. The cost of producing coal then stood at around 1.45p per gigajoule. We are now producing coal in the United Kingdom for 1.05p per gigajoule, which offers a very considerable bargain to industry and domestic consumers if we link that high productivity and use those reserves in a clean way—and now we can.
	At the same time, in the White Paper the Government recognise clearly that CHP has a role to play; it should have a role. The Government want to see 10,000 CHP plants in operation, but the present target is only 5,000. I accept that many of them are not using coal, but if coal is mined cleanly and the cost remains sensible, coal could increase its share. One hopes that the Government's intention to secure a national system of 10,000 CHP plants is realised.
	But the Government flirts with renewables. The recently published Select Committee report stated that the Government have spent £20,000 in support of clean coal technology, but £20 million on renewables. Some of those renewable sources would be ridiculously expensive. Some of them are not entirely acceptable. I worry about wind power. If we have to rely to any great extent on wind power, we shall need to retain back-up energy supplies for those days when the wind does not blow strongly and the windmill sails do not turn, which would be extremely costly.
	When we were discussing the Utilities Bill a day or two ago, my noble friend may recall that I expressed a particular point. In the coal-fields, we knew that the government of the day—not this Government—tried to force open-cast mining on to communities that did not want it. They did not want the noise, the disturbance and the general upheaval often associated with that form of mining. The local authorities did not want it because they had been elected by the communities that were resisting it. But those local authorities knew that if an application was rejected and the applicant appealed, the government would grant the appeal and it would cost the local authority for no good purpose. A few days ago I demanded—or courteously requested, I hope—that the Government should give an assurance that there would be no arm-twisting to force communities desperate to protect their landscape and environment to accept windmills; in effect, having them thrust on them. I made that point especially as wind power is an expensive option, given the requirement for back-up.
	Other schemes have been considered, which also may not be terribly attractive. If coal were to be burnt dirtily and there were no alternatives, as a green supporter for many years, I would accept that wind power is necessary. But it is not necessary for us to take that route.
	I turn to the argument about nuclear power. I do not suggest that it should never be operated. My fear is that it should never be allowed to fall into the hands of tyrants, of whom we still have quite a few about. I also recall visiting Chernobyl. I stood and looked at that monument of horror, and of courage, thinking of the people who went in after the explosion. They knew that they would die as a consequence. I travelled there and witnessed that horror. I then had to travel out through the deathlands surrounding it for a considerable distance. After that, I recognised the fact that, until we can solve the problem of storing nuclear waste, we cannot be certain about the technology—even though we know that the plants operating today are as safe as they can be.
	I take the view that CHP is important and that the Government are to be commended for their commitment to it. But I also take the view—as I hope will the House—that we should get on with developing clean coal technology and modern gasification to guarantee a supply of energy which can be burnt cleanly.
	I trust that I have not exceeded my time. The list of speakers refers to 12 minutes, but a correct mathematical calculation suggests that 15 minutes is not unreasonable.

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hardy for introducing the debate. As I have sat here over the past 10 or 15 minutes, I have had a feeling of pleasurable nostalgia. For many years my noble friend and I sat together during similar debates in another place when we were fighting to maintain a reasonably sized coal industry. Unfortunately we were not very successful.
	Before I come to the main contents of my speech, with the permission of the House I shall take the opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Mason. On 14th April, my noble friend—a lad from the pits—will have completed 50 years' service in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
	I recall a time in 1968 when my noble friend Lord Mason was the Minister of Power. It is appropriate to mention this because in my speech I shall refer to the Drax power station and I know that my noble friend's influence at that time was instrumental in establishing Drax as a coal-fired power station. The miners were indebted to him then and they have been indebted to him ever since. I am certain that no other miner has represented his area—in my noble friend's case, the Barnsley coal field—in Parliament for 50 years. As a former miner myself, I have great pleasure in paying tribute to him.
	Against the background of the energy White Paper that most clearly placed the environment at the heart of this country's energy policy, I wish to draw attention to one aspect of the electricity market which is, perversely, benefiting most those who pollute the atmosphere and penalising those who have invested to reduce harmful emissions.
	Coal-fired generation currently contributes 32 per cent of the country's electricity supply, which uses some 51 million tonnes of coal a year. Of that, last year around 60 per cent was imported with the remainder, some 19 million tonnes, coming from British pits. A large proportion of this—some 7.3 million tonnes—was burnt at the Drax power station, the largest coal-fired plant in western Europe. I regret that the trend over the past few years has been one of increasing imports of coal against falling demand for British coal.
	Aside from the issue of price, which I do not want to go into this evening, the other reason for the increasing switch from UK sources to abroad is the relatively high sulphur content of most British coal. On average, British coal has a higher sulphur content than imported coal; that has a sulphur content of 1 per cent or less, whereas currently available coal from the UK averages a sulphur content of between 1.8 and 1.9 per cent.
	Of course, through burning lower sulphur imported coal, power stations are able to remain within their emission limits under the integrated pollution control regime, as in Part 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, whereas burning British coal may cause them to breach these limits. This also avoids coal-fired stations having to invest the large sums required to fit flue gas desulphurisation—known as FGD—plant.
	Meanwhile, the two stations that have invested in FGD are well equipped to burn British coal through mitigating the SO 2 emissions by some 90 per cent. The downside is that Drax has not only spent £680 million in fitting FGD plant, it has to meet the running costs of about £30 million a year. Your Lordships will recognise that this is obviously a major competitive disadvantage compared with all the other plants that have no abatement equipment and therefore do not need to meet these extra costs.
	The perverse result of this is that production of coal burn is shifting from clean plants to dirtier ones. For example, the amount of coal burned at Drax has fallen from around 11 million tonnes per year in 1996 to some 7.3 million tonnes for 2002. Your Lordships will, I am sure, recognise that not only is more pollution being emitted into the atmosphere because of the increasing coal burn at unabated plant, but there is a real disincentive for the use of British coal.
	Current market conditions, in particular the low market price for wholesale electricity, and the lack of more stringent emissions regulations, act as a distinct disincentive for other power plants to invest in expensive clean-up equipment such as FGD plant.
	Giving the use of unabated plant a significant commercial advantage surely cannot be the intention of the Government's energy policy when so much importance has been attached to reducing harmful emissions. It seems somewhat illogical that plant with FGD is not used to its full extent, so ensuring the lowest possible emissions per gigawatt of power produced before output from unabated plants. Instead, I regret the reverse is happening, with load factors shifting from abated plant to unabated plant. It appears to me that the problem is that the current merit order for the running of power stations takes no account of environmental factors, and optimum efficiency is not being obtained. Unfortunately, and somewhat surprisingly, this issue did not even merit a mention in the White Paper.
	I note that Ministers acknowledge in the White Paper that they should not seek to interfere with the market to obtain their objectives. Can it then be assumed that policy instruments such as the revised large combustion plant directive and other European directives, which complement well the White Paper's environmental aspirations, will be stringently and robustly applied with a view to achieving a running order that prioritises the utilisation of the cleanest and most efficient plant?
	In this context, an area of concern is that the revised large combustion plant directive allows plant to opt out in exchange for a limit, in terms of operational hours, on their output. Such a choice would appear to be totally contrary to the Government's stated environmental objectives.
	I cannot help but think that the opt-out regime, allowing plant 20,000 operational hours over eight years, is unnecessarily lenient and will have a significant negative environmental impact unless total emissions from those plants choosing to opt-out are restricted through a more stringent application of UK environmental regulations. I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that the effect of tougher environmental regulations should be a merit order of plant utilisation that means that the cleanest and most efficient plants are used first and used to maximum capacity. It is only through allowing such a running order that the market will signal and incentivise investment in clean coal technology.
	Surely, it will be in the commercial interests of generators to invest in FGD plant with the result of considerable reductions in harmful emissions, a level playing field for producers and a greater chance for coal from UK pits to compete. To do nothing is to accept that SO 2 emissions are higher than they need be, which is hardly the message that the Government want to send out.
	In conclusion, one of the key objectives of the Government's energy policy, as outlined in the White Paper and as stated by the Minister in his reply to the recent debate on fuel supply, is security of supply. It will not be too many years before coal provides the largest indigenous source of primary energy material in the UK. To damage that supply in the short term by discouraging generators from burning British coal is not only short-sighted but reckless, if I dare use that word.
	The International Energy Agency forecasts that some 38 per cent of the world's electricity will be generated from coal by 2020. As the White Paper acknowledges, here in the UK more efficient and environmentally friendly cleaner coal technologies have a major role to play in making the continued burning of coal acceptable to people and governments as they pursue policies in support of sustainable development. It is essential to ensure that coal-fired generation continues its important role in the country's energy mix. The onus is on the industry to continue to make it more environmentally friendly through investment in abatement plant as well as in other clean coal technologies.
	I strongly suggest to my noble friend the Minister that the onus on the Government is not to penalise those who invest in abatement plant but to introduce new measures that will put the environment first and to continue to encourage research into clean coal technology.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to join in the appreciation expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract, to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, for introducing this debate.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, said that this was in some ways a nostalgic occasion. For those associated with the coal industry, any occasion for speaking about coal, with its great and turbulent history, quickly becomes nostalgic. We have heard some memories from the two eminent speakers who came before me, about their experience of that industry.
	I concur with the congratulatory remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, about the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley. I had the pleasure of working very closely with the noble Lord, Lord Mason, when he was Secretary of State for Energy. He undoubtedly made a big contribution to the coal industry at that time.
	The White Paper, to which reference has properly been made, considers, among many other issues, the future of coal. At present, coal provides about a third of the fuel going into power stations. I can well remember when coal provided the whole of the energy supply to power stations, but now it is down to a third. But, on present trends, the prospect is that by the year 2020 it will virtually have been eliminated from power stations. At that stage, the supply of gas to power stations could amount to something like 90 per cent. That would be a serious development, bearing in mind that at that stage over 70 per cent of the gas would then have to be imported from distant and uncertain places.
	So one way of mitigating this situation would be by making more progress than hitherto in the application of clean coal technologies. The White Paper makes it clear that there can only be a real future for coal if these technologies are developed. Now is the time to move ahead rapidly in that direction. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, pointed out, there are already proven technologies. This is not a question of research and development; it is a question of applying technologies that already exist. In the shorter term, as he pointed out, coal generating plant could achieve CO2 emission reductions of 20 to 25 per cent by retrofitting advanced super-critical boiler and turbine systems, which are readily available.
	Greater reductions could be achieved by the construction of integrated gasification combined cycle powers plants (IGCCs). As the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, pointed out, there are two plants awaiting the go-ahead. One is in Onllwyn, in South Wales, which he forbore from pronouncing—I hope that I have got the pronunciation roughly right, as I quite frequently visited the Principality in my time in the coal industry; the other is at Hatfield, near Doncaster.
	The ultimate objective must be to link IGCC systems with carbon sequestration and storage, and using the carbon extracted for enhanced oil recovery—EOR, as it is now becoming known. The White Paper makes it clear that EOR could yield an additional 200 million tonnes or 1.5 billion barrels of oil from the North Sea over 20 years. At present, the production rate is about 130 million tonnes and diminishing, so this could be quite a big contribution to extending the oil reserves being extracted from the North Sea. The trouble is that, because of depleting oil reserves, the opportunity for enhanced oil recovery only exists for the short term. According to the White Paper, CO2 injection would need to start by the period 2006–2008. If that is so, work has to be done urgently to construct a plant and get it into operation. We cannot waste time. To be fair to the Government, that urgency is recognised in the White Paper. A study has already started to look into the feasibility of proceeding with an EOR plant. That is to report by about August, with proposals as to how this could be proceeded with.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, pointed out, in the United States they have moved ahead much faster than we have in this area. Recently, a most ambitious project was launched aiming at zero emissions from coal-fired plant. Zero emissions means that coal could be placed on the same basis as renewables. You cannot get below zero. It could be something quite remarkable. It is known as the FutureGen project. It would be of a 275 megawatt capacity (equivalent to a medium-sized power station) and cost 1 billion dollars (or £650 million), 80 per cent funded—I emphasise that—by the US Government. In the words of the American Secretary of Energy, that would,
	"turn coal from an environmentally challenging energy service into an environmentally benign one".
	Is the UK participating in that project, either at governmental or commercial level?
	In view of the developing prospect of energy import dependence for the first time in our history—we have never before been as likely to have to depend so much on imports as we will in the next 20 years—and in view of the substantial reserves of coal and of the technologies now available for minimising the environmental impact of coal use, there is a strong case for accelerating support for clean coal technology and ensuring that, at long last, one or more plants come on stream as soon as possible.
	Among others, I have for many years been urging for a plant to come into operation in this country. We have been told that we are doing a great deal to export technological know-how in the combustion of coal and particularly of clean coal. However, unless we have a plant to demonstrate, the effect of seeking to export that technology will be minimised and people will go to the United States, to the Netherlands and to other countries where there are plants in operation.
	I have heard rumours that the Government have in recent months been diverting resources away from work on clean coal technologies to renewables and other activities. I hope that the Minister will deny that and assure the House that more rather than fewer resources will be earmarked for clean coal technology and development.
	As I pointed out, the White Paper makes it clear that we have to move fast to take advantage of enhanced oil recovery in the North Sea. That can be done through the injection of CO 2 recovered from clean coal technologies. I conclude by asking the Minister whether he can confirm that it is the Government's firm objective to achieve those developments and to ensure that our abundant coal reserves can be exploited in the years ahead using the new technologies, thus reducing excessive dependence on energy imports.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, for introducing this important and interesting debate. I was also very pleased to hear the tribute from the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, to the noble Lord, Lord Mason, for his great contribution to the coal-mining industry.
	Electricity is a most important component of our domestic and industrial life. In the past 50 years, the whole energy mix of this country has changed drastically. In 1950, to generate electricity we used 10.4 per cent crude oil and 89.5 per cent coal. By 2000, the figures changed dramatically: coal had sunk to just 32 per cent and gas had overtaken it as a primary source of power, comprising 43 per cent of the fuel employed in electricity generation. Of course the so-called "dash for gas" was understandable in the light of the vast reserves that became available to us from the North Sea and the fact that, if one has to burn a fossil fuel, gas is cleaner and safer than coal or oil. However, our dwindling North Sea supplies mean that we shall shortly become large-scale importers and that our reserves will run out within a decade. We will then become dependent on imports from places such as Algeria, the Sahara and Russia.
	The adverse effect of that large-scale importation of gas on our balance of payments illustrates one reason why the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, has introduced this debate. We cannot put ourselves in a situation where we are too heavily dependent on any one source of generating electricity.
	I quote from the Coal Authority's recent response to the consultation on energy supply:
	"Diversity is not an end in itself, but just one of the possible means of enhancing security of supply".
	As other noble Lords have said, the Government have placed a great deal of emphasis on renewable sources, mostly wind power. But as I pointed out to your Lordships during the debate on the energy White Paper, to meet the Government's target for renewables by 2020, we would have to build a further 19,930 wind farms or, to put it another way, three a day. That is a most difficult target. But whether it is a target or an aspiration, a reliance on a projected 20 per cent supply of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 is something that we absolutely cannot rely on in our current projections.
	Before I leave the subject of renewables I touch on one coal-based renewable source, coal-bed methane, in itself a potential pollutant unless properly treated, but the exploitation of which would add to energy supplies without adding direct costs to the consumer. The Coal Authority has had no approach from the Government on the prospects of using that resource. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when he replies to the debate what financial means and regulatory support are being contemplated for coal-bed methane as part of the drive to exploit renewable sources of power.
	The simple fact is that, even if the Government were somehow able to reach their target of 10 per cent of our electricity supplies coming from renewable sources by 2010, that would not keep pace with the 1.5 per cent per annum growth in electricity demand projected by the National Grid, let alone replace diminishing coal-fired capacity.
	While mentioning diminishing capacity—which has to be replaced from somewhere—we cannot overlook the fact that our declining nuclear capacity is programmed to fall to almost nothing in the next 15 years.
	Irrespective of the generation power source, we could still have temporary shortages of electricity. That would happen if we reduced our own generating capacity or allowed it to be degraded. It will especially happen if we fail to maintain an adequate margin of spare capacity because of the Government's dithering over the establishment of new power stations. Then we might have to rely on short-term imports of electricity. From where would we import it? We might import it from France, but I am not sure that we would want that.
	Diverse but viable sources of fuel are essential. That brings me to the greater use of coal. As Aneurin Bevan pointed out in May 1945,
	"this island is made mainly of coal".
	Because of the economics of coal-mining, today we import more coal than we produce. In 2001 we produced 32.1 million tonnes but imported 35.5 million tonnes. Paradoxically, it is cheaper to import coal from South Africa, Australia, Colombia or America than to dig it up from under our feet. Although coal, rightly, has a reputation as a dirty, highly polluting fuel, the abundant reserves from all around the world make the supply secure. It is safe and stable to transport, store and use. But, above all, using modern technologies coal can be burnt cleanly. That is the nub of this present important debate.
	If we are to have a secure, multi-sourced supply of electricity, we cannot, and must not, ignore coal as a major part of it. But if we are to make the fullest possible use of coal as part of our electricity generation fuel mix, our obligation towards the environment demands that we should use clean coal rather than the material which produces smog, fog, acid rain and greenhouse gases.
	Although the United Kingdom has a leading place in the three forms of clean coal technology, its share of the world market in that technology fell by 1½ per cent in 1999. That is because we have not made adequate demonstrable use of it domestically. Large-scale demonstration plants have been opened in Spain and Holland, as the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, mentioned. I fear that unless something is done with government support and co-operation, the fruits of the exploitation of this technology will follow the course of many other British engineering feats and will simply disappear overseas.
	According to the brief that I received from AES Drax, the Government are not supporting this new technology or encouraging its use for our domestic electrical supply. Allowing for the possibility that something in the brief may have been a bit of lobbying, it makes a number of claims: that burning a mixture of petroleum coke and coal produces more heat with less fuel; that emissions of oxides of nitrogen, effluent, dust and metals will reduce; and, despite that, it says that the current operation of the energy market and environmental regulations mean that the cleanest coal-fired generation plants are at a disadvantage with coal plants offering no abatement of harmful emissions.
	I would like to hear from the Minister in his reply to this debate about what steps the Government are taking to encourage, by the sensible application of regulations, the use of this technology for the benefit of our own electrical supply and of our technical export industry.
	The Coal Authority, in its submission in reply to the consultation, said that,
	"the single most important action the Government can take to provide the necessary investment climate would be to rationalise the current confusing mix of carbon control measures and organisations, and bring certainty to the issue of carbon taxes".
	It went on to say that,
	"the current system lacks certainty, transparency, and unfairly burdens the generation and use of electricity compared with other sectors".
	I hope that the Government will take the opportunity afforded by today's important debate to respond to the Coal Authority's specific points.
	There is no obvious replacement of the 24 gigawatts of coal-fired generation other than gas but if, as is currently planned, only 12 gigawatts of capacity is fitted with flue gas desulphurisation, the present coal-fired capacity will be halved by 2020. In fact, retrofitting of supercritical boilers could be commenced almost immediately, subject to sufficient regularity clarity, as both the Coal Authority and AES Drax request. That was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Such regulation would need to be framed so as to ensure a satisfactory payback over the expected lifetime of each project.
	February's White Paper set out a number of government measures to promote cleaner coal technology. Those will of course be very welcome so long as the Government translate their fine words into positive action. We will all hope that the Minister's response to this debate will give details of the practical steps that they are now taking to achieve that end. The Secretary of State told the other place in its debate on the White Paper that,
	"we are . . . on course to meet not just",
	our Kyoto targets,
	"but, we believe, the more challenging . . . target . . . of a 20 per cent. reduction by 2010".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/03; col. 31.]
	However, figures from government sources admit that UK emissions of CO 2 are now higher than in 1997, and Friends of the Earth estimates that in 2010 emissions will be just 3.5 per cent below 1990 levels.
	I quote the words of my colleague, the honourable Member for Reigate, who said,
	"the Government's current policy framework is presiding over the third annual rise in CO 2 emissions, and an increase in generation from coal fired plants NOT fitted with Clean Coal Technology . . . and the confident expectation is that they will miss their target for renewable electricity generation by 2010".
	Dithering over the future of clean coal technology will cost us dear both as regards our environmental commitments and the security and continuity of our supply of electricity.
	On the urgent issue of supporting and encouraging by every means possible the development and use of clean-coal technology as a major part of our electricity fuel mix, I cannot do better than to quote the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who said:
	"Ducking hard decisions today risks the lights going out tomorrow".

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I join everyone who has congratulated my noble friend Lord Hardy on introducing this debate and, indeed, I congratulate all speakers on the quality of their contributions. I also join my noble friend Lord Lofthouse and others in expressing my regard for the fact that my noble friend Lord Mason has spent 50 years in Parliament. I quite understand why he did not stay for the debate. He did, after all, participate in the two-and-a-half hour debate which finished just before this one. He was able to speak about the joys of fly-fishing, which is perhaps more to his taste now than the coal industry. But we should have liked to hear from him on this subject as well.
	That is particularly appropriate in the context of the energy White Paper. As my noble friend Lord Hardy said, the White Paper presents a long view because the whole matter of environmental pollution is a long-view issue. It is now virtually certain that global warming is caused by our increasing use of fossil fuels. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution recommended—it is reflected in the White Paper—that we should reduce the emission of gases by some 60 per cent by 2050. We have also committed to the Kyoto target of a reduction in gas levels of 12 per cent by 2010. We have already made some progress towards that due to the switch from coal-fired to gas-fired generation. I shall not go into the merits or otherwise of the "dash for gas". I am less sympathetic to it than the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Nevertheless, that must be the reason we have achieved some progress here, but it means that it will be very difficult to continue to do so after 2012. Both for environmental and business reasons, we simply cannot sit back and let global warming happen.
	Of course, coal has many benefits as a fuel for power generation. As a number of noble Lords said, that is mainly because of the security of supply that it provides. But it is also because it is easily transported and stored and because we still have large indigenous reserves, although I believe that geological conditions limit the extent to which they can be exploited. Coal technology is a mature technology. We know all about it.
	However, coal has major disadvantages in that it emits gases which, if not controlled, are damaging to the environment. We have measures in place to deal with the acid rain gases such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. My noble friend Lord Lofthouse, in particular, referred to the use of FGD to eliminate sulphur dioxide. I believe that that goes some way to reducing the difference in cleanliness between our domestic coal and imported coal. He is right that imported coal has lower levels of sulphur.
	However, the real problem now comes surely not so much from acid rain gases but from carbon dioxide. It is still the case that coal-powered plants emit twice as much carbon as natural gas-fired power plants. If we are to continue with coal, we must use it more cleanly than we do at present.
	There are restraints which are beyond our control. Reference has been made to the Large Combustion Plant Directive, which will mean increasingly demanding emission standards. If any plant does not meet them, they will have to be phased out by 2015. The emission trading scheme is not particularly helpful. That comes into force in 2005, but it does not really favour coal as a source of power.
	Therefore, how will coal respond to those challenges? We have already supported the development of cleaner coal technologies for many years. We have not done so to the extent of £20,000, as my noble friend Lord Hardy suggested, but a programme of around £8.4 million is in place for 40 research and developments projects and a similar amount is available for the transfer of cleaner coal technology to countries such as China and India and for the promotion of British exports. That programme is focused on technologies that use coal more efficiently. It has been a finite programme but we shall review it and update it this year. Although it is a finite programme there is no prospect that it will come to an end.
	Not much was made of the mining equipment side in debate. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hardy that our mining equipment industry depends on us continuing to have a home base. We have been active in supporting the mining equipment industry. With the Association of British Mining Equipment Companies we have been supporting an extensive programme of overseas activities; within Trade Partners UK we have been developing a cleaner coal export strategy; and we have been helping them to promote coherent export strategies across the coal sector.
	We have also been using the technology transfer and exports programme to promote UK power generation technologies such as cleaner, more efficient boilers to reduce carbon emissions. We are also considering some support for another project that has been referred to, retrofitting a supercritical boiler to an existing coal-fired plant that could act as a showcase for promoting the exports of that technology, particularly to countries such as India and China.
	We are invited by the words of the Unstarred Question to look into the future of the cleaner use of coal, in particular by capturing and storing the carbon away from the atmosphere. I was challenged directly by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about the US FutureGen project. Of course, they are starting from a different base. They have far more of a coal industry than we do; 55 per cent of their power generation is from coal. Therefore, the investment base for them is of a different order compared with ours. However, we see advantages in collaboration, and although we have made no decisions about joining with them, we are actively exploring that.
	There are two main carbon capture technologies that can improve the carbon effectiveness of coal that already exist for its transportation and injection deep beneath the ground. The first one is using supercritical and ultra-supercritical pulverised fuel boiler technologies. Those technologies can offer not the zero emissions that FutureGen is talking about, but 15 to 20 per cent CO 2 savings. They can be retrofitted to existing plant. We are considering the possibility of support for retrofitting to which I referred.
	The second capture technology is gasification and the combined cycle turbine—integrated coal gasification combined cycle, or IGCC, to which reference has been made and which can produce at least 15 to 20 per cent and possibly as much as 80 per cent savings with carbon capture. Reference has been made already to the two IGCC plants that are in prospect: the Valley's energy project in Onllwyn and the Hatfield project near Doncaster. Both my noble friend Lord Hardy and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to those and we are supportive of them and hope that they succeed.
	Less has been said this evening about the storage of CO 2 produced from coal plant which can be applied to either of those main technologies. That involves transporting it either to a depleted oil or gas well or to aquifers beneath the ground. Certainly, the combination of these technologies provides the opportunity to overcome the disadvantages coal currently suffers. So we are looking at the feasibility of securing significant CO 2 savings, both from carbon capture and from storage.
	Locking carbon away deep underground provides the prospect of material savings. It could be used, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, to enhance the recovery of oil. There is technical evidence which indicates that it could be used to flush out some of the oil which otherwise would not be extractable. As the noble Lord reminded us, the White Paper said that we should undertake an implementation study in order to see what can be done to get a project off the ground as quickly as possible because we recognise that we have a small window of opportunity before the fields start to be decommissioned. I cannot confirm to him when the report will be available. He is right to remind us and to jog our elbow on this subject. If I learn any more about it I shall write to him.
	Before I go on, I should say a word about the abatement plant issue, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Lofthouse and by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. It is encouraging that two major coal-fired power plants can survive in the current market despite the effectiveness of the new electricity trading arrangements for reducing produce prices. That they are planning to fit FCD suggests that there is a rational business decision to be made and that they could survive with the production of cleaner power. I say to that, "All power to their elbow". It should certainly be encouraged.
	However, there are problems with the technologies that I have been describing. I must be honest about that. There is the doubt whether the storing of carbon under the seabed in the North Sea is legal under our international obligations. The cost of capturing and storing carbon is prohibitive at the moment. It could be between £125 to £340 per tonne of carbon abated. It would become less if EOR were to be adopted. Even so, there are still problems about being sure that the carbon will not leak back into the sea and the atmosphere. We must have a regulatory framework for that and for the storage and transportation of the carbon, and we would need to have co-operation with the other countries which share the North Sea with us.
	I apologise for having been technical to some extent, but this is a technical subject and it deserves a serious answer. In the light of the time, I shall resist the temptation to talk about the other matters that were raised in debate, such as wind farms, nuclear, even combined heat and power, or indeed the more general issues of the survival of the coal industry. This has been a valuable and well-informed debate about a particular subject, which is the development of clean-coal technology. I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part. I hope that they will feel that the Government are certainly not neglecting this important subject.

House adjourned at sixteen minutes before ten o'clock.